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 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...

True, but irrelevant -- _some packages_, _somewhere_, do depend on xz, which, if built, requires pulling the source from GitHub (see the default.nix: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/nixos-23.11/pkgs/tools...)

It's not the vulnerability that's a problem right now (NixOS was protected by a couple of factors) but rather GitHub's hamfisted response.

That is the problem.

We’ve noticed that some users have been asking about how to use older versions of Terraform in their Nix setups [1, 2]. This is an example of the diverse needs of people and the importance of maintaining backward compatibility. We hope that nixpkgs-terraform will be a useful tool for these users.

I think whateveracct was referring to is this link:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/developmen...

What that file is doing, is building a package, and it essentially is a combination of what Makefile and what RPM spec file does.

I don't know if you're familiar with those tools, but if you aren't it takes some time to know them enough to understand what is happening. So why would be different here?