Thanks and well done. The Dosemu team has saved me at least 200 reboots, and
another 3 today.

Marcel Landman


Hans Lermen wrote:

> Hi Friends and Users of DOSEMU,
>
> Finaly, after 8 years of development, we decided to give our baby the
> freedom to call itself 'production ready'. We could not realize all our
> wishes, but the stuff which is in should be as stable as it can be with
> DOS in the background :-)
>
> Thanks to all people involved, those still active as well as those
> formerly active ones ;-) Special thanks to all the former co-ordinators
> who 'governed' the development team befor me:
>
>         - Matthias Lautner, started the DOSEMU project 1992
>         - Robert Sanders, took over government 1993
>         - James B. MacLean, who was the longest staying on
>           this project: 1994 .. 1996
>
> Since 1997 being the co-ordinator of this exiting project, I'm very happy
> that it finally reaches its aim.
>
> dosemu-1.0.0 is uploaded to the usual place:
>
>   ftp.dosemu.org:/dosemu/
>                      .../Development/patchset-0.99.14.tgz
>                      .../patchset-1.0.0.tgz
>                      .../dosemu-1.0.0.tgz
>                      .../dosemu-1.0.0-1.i386.rpm
>
> In the meantime it got mirrored and also is available on:
>
>   ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/emulators/dosemu/*
>
> The md5sums are:
>
> 17b8ce057b257b0c1e287a2fbfdbb451  patchset-0.99.14.tgz
> 3d25264f530fb67f1e2af58b62d8e621  patchset-1.0.0.tgz
> f6b4338aeddc75845c68baf509fd0261  dosemu-1.0.0.tgz
> 9d3f39f8424130d1c65d563956188423  dosemu-1.0.0-1.i386.rpm
>
> Note that 1.0.0 was built out of 0.99.13 ==> 0.99.14 and that 0.99.14
> is the 'fork point' which will continue unchanged as 1.1.x.
> 1.0.0 is identical to 0.99.14 except it has no cpu-emu.
>
> A final remark: For those compiling dosemu themselves with some (latest?)
> glibc-2.1.3 variants, it maybe necessary to set 'slangforce off' in
> ./compiletime-settings to use their own Slang library, else linkage may
> fail. Though I got report of this problem, I can't reproduce it. The
> system on which I checked the compilation with gcc-2.95.2/glibc-2.1.3 had
> no problems at all.
>
> Have a lot of fun,
> Hans
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to