For a patch to be integrated into the official DosBox code it has to be compatible with Linux/OSX and has to have a game related reason for being integrated.

I'm not sure how compatible Hal's passthrough code is with Linux.

no direct plans for inclusion.
I'll keep on watching it to see how the code evolves and how large the demand is.

I have seem some games that made use of printer (Some of AD&D franchise made by Dreamforge, Realms of Arkania, some educational ones, etc). Unfortunately they aren't that much.

All the Infocom games have a "script" command that copies all the text to a printer. But of course there are other ways of running them on modern machines than DOS emulation.

[quote]
...and has to have a game related reason for being integrated.
[/quote]

Why must it have a game related reason for being integrated? DosBox could run DOS-applications too. Why just limit the use of the program only to games? It allready does more.

That the patch has to be linux compatible, thats a reason, I accept. But not, that it has to be game related. If the program would only be able to run games, then is would be, but not if it can run many other Dos applications direct out of the box.

Maybe its better to rename the program into DosGamesOnlyBox.

DosBox developers program DosBox for free. Patches have to have game related reasons because that is the main goal of DosBox. Occasionally non game related patches are integrated if there is alot of demand but this does not happen too often.

Reasons DosBox doesn't have this implemented:

It can already be done with an unofficial patch.

There are other programs out there that are capable of doing what you want to do.

Patches integrated into DosBox have to be maintained. As DosBox grows bigger it requires more maintenance for DosBox to be compatible with all patches it integrates. This is a big job.

Potentially any patch integrated into DosBox can reduce compatibility. Since DosBox's main goal is GAME compatibility then integrating a non game related patch for people wanting to run their BUSINESS applications for FREE would not be very nice for the people who want to play games in DosBox.

DosBox devs have been burned by people who want them to integrate a feature promising to offer money, the feature gets integrated and the $$$ never appears.

...I accept. But not, that it has to be game related.

Nobody cares what you accept and what not.

[quote="wd"]
[quote]
...I accept. But not, that it has to be game related.
[/quote]
Nobody cares what you accept and what not.
[/quote]

This just shows that the project leaders are just having a very limited view of the world. Thats poor. No change for criticism, no change for discussing. Am I right, if i guess that even if somebody would maintain the code and review/adapt it for future releases, it won`t be included? That`s what it seems to me.

There are many people out there where Dosbox supporting access to parallel-ports could bring the change of using many more old program. Maybe it would be better to rename the current branch of DosBox to DosGameBox and build a fork that really should be named DosBox. DosBox is really great work and the developers really deserve praise. But it`s sad to find out that there`s no change to help improving the software together and discuss, like on other OpenSource Software like samba or amanda.

Why is the view of some people so limited?

There can only be one answer to this and it was already given.

DosBox developers program DosBox for free. Patches have to have game related reasons because that is the main goal of DosBox. Oc […]
Show full quote

DosBox developers program DosBox for free. Patches have to have game related reasons because that is the main goal of DosBox. Occasionally non game related patches are integrated if there is alot of demand but this does not happen too often.

Reasons DosBox doesn't have this implemented:

It can already be done with an unofficial patch.

There are other programs out there that are capable of doing what you want to do.

The nice thing of your requests and accusations is that it just fits nicely in a certain pattern that is prominent in open source forums.
Person comes in and wants something done. People answer with workarounds and give reasons why it won't go into the source. Lengthy replies come from original poster explaining why it is the must-have-feature and how unjust and limited in their vision the developers are. 😀

But it`s sad to find out that there`s no change to help improving the software together and discuss

Uh yes of course. Don't look at the cvs changelog.

Why is the view of some people so limited?

In my case it's because i'm stupid so this helps me surviving.

Also i'm no project leader or whatsoever. Write a mail to Harekiet.
This doesn't need any further discussion, if you need the parallel
passthrough use hal's build and that's it.