On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Stas Sergeev wrote: > Bart Oldeman wrote: > >> Isn't 1.0.2.1 the latest 'stable' version, > >> whilst 1.1.3 is unstable' ? > > Yes. > Well, no:) > Consider this: 1.0.2.1 had enough *known* bugs > for too long. Version that have known bugs (in > contrast to unknown, which are always present) > can't be called "stable" or recommended for a > real use IMO, esp. when such bugs are many and > some are serious.
There are no really "release critical" bugs in 1.0.2.1 if you run DOSEMU non-suid-root. If you run DOSEMU suid-root, yes, but then we strongly recommend not to do that if your machine is "net-open". Ideally dosemu 1.0.3 would have been released which fixes those known bugs. It has not been released yet, so we're stuck with 1.0.2.1. There are quite a few annoying bugs, agreed - for instance a SIGSEGV if your xterm is too big, the serial code does not work for normal users, there are mouse problems with some programs, ... But there are a lot of things you can do with 1.0.2.1 without being affected by those bugs. > > It's basically like this: > > if 1.0.2.1 works for you then stick with it. > That's true but atleast every person must be aware > that this version have *known* bugs and there is > another version which doesn't have atleast those. > This is what most people not even suspect (but > for the readers of this list it is strange:) Yes - but 1.1.x can have *new* bugs because it contains code that is not as widely tested, *at any stage*. This is something which should not be forgotten. 1.1.3.2 may be fairly stable and then 1.1.3.3 can just crash at any time under normal use (which dosemu 1.0.2.1 does not do). Bart - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
