5 ms·
Hi HN, blog post author here. Rather than just posting the end result that worked, this is my trial-and-error "walthrough" of building a container from start t
by mbrukman 6y ago
Hi HN, blog post author here.
Rather than just posting the end result that worked, this is my trial-and-error "walthrough" of building a container from start to finish, in order to run several games from a while back.
Hopefully, this can get you started with playing these and other games again, or discovering them for the first time! Let me know what you think and if you'd like to see more of this in the future.
- Widdershin 6y agoI think this is an excellent post, because you demonstrate an applied use of a bunch of excellent *nix tools, combined with a presentation of the mental model that helped you put it all together. I am largely self taught, and I didn't touch C/C++ for a long time, so there's a lot of stuff people might take for granted (like the use of ldd), which for a long time I had never encountered.
- mbrukman 6y agoThank you for the kind words! Glad to hear you enjoyed it.
- readwind 6y agoYour email is nowhere to be found, so it's impossible to email you about typos or bugs. Typos in this case. Anyways search for: Thus, it is imperative to avoid giving these containers running old software no access to the network and remove the "no" I suppose? I might be wrong. Only one 'no' there, so it should be gone, afaik.
- mbrukman 6y ago> Your email is nowhere to be found, so it's impossible to email you about typos or bugs. Typos in this case. You're right, I don't post my email address on my blog, and yet it's widely available and discoverable (which leads to spam, so...). That said, you can find me on Twitter and LinkedIn, and send me a private message there. Public comments on HN also work. :-) Back to your original point: > Anyways search for: > Thus, it is imperative to avoid giving these containers running old software no access to the network > and remove the "no" I suppose? I might be wrong. Only one 'no' there, so it should be gone, afaik. You're absolutely right; that's a double negative—that "no" should either be dropped or replaced with "any". I'll fix that in a bit. Thanks again for your careful reading and letting me know!