em-dosbox VS nixpkgs

https://www.dosbox.com/ (Emulador de DOS)

https://github.com/joncampbell123/dosbox-x

em-dosbox: https://github.com/dreamlayers/em-dosbox

Does dosbox [in WASM] support SBEMU?

There's a note about fpemu= and 80 bit precision for dosbox emulation.

docker-dosbox: https://github.com/schneidexe/docker-dosbox/blob/main/Docker...

DOSBox: https://www.dosbox.com

Oh, dosbox?

DOSBox is free. You can probably run GOLF.COM and that should run it. You can also try running DESIGN.COM, although I would guess that allows you to design either miniature golf courses, or golf courses.

Notably, unlike Rolypolys 1, you cannot run it in DOSbox. This is because the game is a 32-bit executable, and 32-bit support was simply not present in Windows 3.1, the latest stable Windows version that can be run in DOSbox.

DosBox (https://www.dosbox.com) is my go-to, but here are other options as you can see from u/beramuden

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

In this specific case, nix uses fetchFromGitHub to download the source archive, which are generated by GitHub for the specified revision[1]. Arch seems to just download the tarball from the releases page[2].

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/3c2fdd0a4e6396fc310a6e...

[2]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/ib...