Bug 1098

[Paul S. Person]

This bug points out that, for the DOS installation to work, dos4gw is
needed.

The page referred to appears to be:
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Alternative_Open_Watcom_distribution

The problem appears to be at the bottom, where it states:

There is also a minimal set (only C, no C++ / help / samples /
debugger), which includes sets [2] and [6] above, consisting of 11
files, or ~4.4 Mb.

The problem being that neither [2] nor [6] include dos4gw. The
suggestion, then, appears to be that "[4] (at least DOS4GW.ZIP)" be
added to the list of sets in the "minimal set" described in the
sentence quoted above.

Is that correct or am I missing something?
--
"'If God foreknew that this would happen,
it will happen.'"

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
wrote:

>
> This bug points out that, for the DOS installation to work, dos4gw is
> needed.

For the installer, perhaps, but it's still a .ZIP sfx, right? So you
could still unzip (assuming everyone already has such a tool)
manually.

> The page referred to appears to be:http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Alternative_Open_Watcom_distribution

That's old 1.7.1, and those .ZIPs prepared (apparently) by Arkady.
Anyone heard anything from him lately? Not me. In other words, he
never updated it for 1.8 or 1.9.

Full disclosure: it was me who unofficially prepared the .7z (DOS-
only but "full") archives for later versions 1.8 and 1.9 (for
FreeDOS). But I was much delayed in doing so, hence most people
probably didn't have a problem installing it themselves. And nobody
requested it either. So I don't think it's urgent or crucial by any
means. It's not worth worrying too much about, I mean.

> The problem appears to be at the bottom, where it states:
>
> There is also a minimal set (only C, no C++ / help / samples /
> debugger), which includes sets [2] and [6] above, consisting of 11
> files, or ~4.4 Mb.

Some people [who?] still have slow connections, so I guess it's better
for them to only have partial installs. Admittedly, also if you don't
grok or need C++, you may not want to install it. I don't know of
anything offhand in FreeDOS (for instance) that needs C++. Certainly
not anything like the kernel or shell. (I guess that was Arkady's
motivation in mentioning such things.)

> The problem being that neither [2] nor [6] include dos4gw. The
> suggestion, then, appears to be that "[4] (at least DOS4GW.ZIP)" be
> added to the list of sets in the "minimal set" described in the
> sentence quoted above.
>
> Is that correct or am I missing something?

Sounds right. Though of course there are lots of "Watcom extender" or
"DOS/4GW" replacements available. (In particular, I still wonder why
OW includes "old" DOS/32A 7.2 instead of latest [2006!] 9.1.2.)

It might honestly be better to "stub" the extender to the installer,
then it wouldn't be an issue. I know you can't do that with DOS/4GW,
but Causeway and DOS/32A have no problem.

P.S. FreeDOS 1.1 test #3 was their last (unfinished) attempt at a new
release, circa a few months ago (late July?). I haven't heard much
since officially then. Everybody is always busy. Perhaps over the
holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas) things will pick up, though don't
get your hopes up. (Even then, it's pretty much "BASE" only, not the
"FULL" everything-and-the-kitchen-sink of the old FD 1.0 from 2006.)

[Roald Ribe]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:40:13 -0300, Rugxulo <rug...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> It might honestly be better to "stub" the extender to the installer,
> then it wouldn't be an issue. I know you can't do that with DOS/4GW,
> but Causeway and DOS/32A have no problem.

Would that not make the installer available on 386 CPU's only?

If changes to the default/used DOS extender is made, it should be to
an open source and still manitained extender, namely hx-dos IMO.

Roald

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Nov 23, 5:56 am, "Roald Ribe" <roald.r...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:40:13 -0300, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It might honestly be better to "stub" the extender to the installer,
> > then it wouldn't be an issue. I know you can't do that with DOS/4GW,
> > but Causeway and DOS/32A have no problem.
>
> Would that not make the installer available on 386 CPU's only?

It already only works on 386+ due to libzip dependency. Of course you
can still manually unzip the files from the .ZIP sfx, but you can't
run most of them (esp. the main C compiler itself) because they too
are all "386 host only" these days (since a long time). I guess you
could still find value in WMAKER and WASMR. Can't remember anything
else offhand.

> If changes to the default/used DOS extender is made, it should be to
> an open source and still manitained extender, namely hx-dos IMO.

OW developers seem to like (and occasionally tweak) Causeway, so
that's probably the way to go. Though I still think DOS/32A is useful,
even if it doesn't rebuild (IIRC) with OW. I don't know what it would
take to integrate HX, and I don't know if Japheth is still interested
at this point.

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:40:13 -0800 (PST), Rugxulo <rug...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>> This bug points out that, for the DOS installation to work, dos4gw is
>> needed.
>
>For the installer, perhaps, but it's still a .ZIP sfx, right? So you
>could still unzip (assuming everyone already has such a tool)
>manually.

I think you are missing the point.

Without a DOS Extender, per the bug report, /none/ of the DOS programs
will run. Open Watcom cannot be used on DOS without a DOS Extender.

>> The page referred to appears to be:http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Alternative_Open_Watcom_distribution
>
>That's old 1.7.1, and those .ZIPs prepared (apparently) by Arkady.
>Anyone heard anything from him lately? Not me. In other words, he
>never updated it for 1.8 or 1.9.

How old it is is not relevant. Someone /did/ read the page and /did/
download the minimum DOS install and /did/ find out that it did not
work.

>Full disclosure: it was me who unofficially prepared the .7z (DOS-
>only but "full") archives for later versions 1.8 and 1.9 (for
>FreeDOS). But I was much delayed in doing so, hence most people
>probably didn't have a problem installing it themselves. And nobody
>requested it either. So I don't think it's urgent or crucial by any
>means. It's not worth worrying too much about, I mean.
>
>> The problem appears to be at the bottom, where it states:
>>
>> There is also a minimal set (only C, no C++ / help / samples /
>> debugger), which includes sets [2] and [6] above, consisting of 11
>> files, or ~4.4 Mb.
>
>Some people [who?] still have slow connections, so I guess it's better
>for them to only have partial installs. Admittedly, also if you don't
>grok or need C++, you may not want to install it. I don't know of
>anything offhand in FreeDOS (for instance) that needs C++. Certainly
>not anything like the kernel or shell. (I guess that was Arkady's
>motivation in mentioning such things.)

The point is that the suggested install is /too/ minimal: the programs
don't run.

>> The problem being that neither [2] nor [6] include dos4gw. The
>> suggestion, then, appears to be that "[4] (at least DOS4GW.ZIP)" be
>> added to the list of sets in the "minimal set" described in the
>> sentence quoted above.
>>
>> Is that correct or am I missing something?
>
>Sounds right. Though of course there are lots of "Watcom extender" or
>"DOS/4GW" replacements available. (In particular, I still wonder why
>OW includes "old" DOS/32A 7.2 instead of latest [2006!] 9.1.2.)

So editing the page (at the bottom) as indicated would be a reasonable
thing to do?

>It might honestly be better to "stub" the extender to the installer,
>then it wouldn't be an issue. I know you can't do that with DOS/4GW,
>but Causeway and DOS/32A have no problem.

It might be better still to work with Open Watcom as it exists, and
not try to change it, when a solution (modifying the Wiki) clearly
exists.

>P.S. FreeDOS 1.1 test #3 was their last (unfinished) attempt at a new
>release, circa a few months ago (late July?). I haven't heard much
>since officially then. Everybody is always busy. Perhaps over the
>holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas) things will pick up, though don't
>get your hopes up. (Even then, it's pretty much "BASE" only, not the
>"FULL" everything-and-the-kitchen-sink of the old FD 1.0 from 2006.)

[Rugxulo]

Hi again,

On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
wrote:
>

> I think you are missing the point.
>
> Without a DOS Extender, per the bug report, /none/ of the DOS programs
> will run. Open Watcom cannot be used on DOS without a DOS Extender.

Okay, acknowledged. However, to be honest, I don't know whose
attention you were trying to grab here. Maybe I shouldn't have
replied, none of my business! :-)

FYI, this is not a "bug" with later versions (e.g. "full" OW 1.9 DOS
installer, 81 MB). It is bound with Causeway 4.04 and also includes
(inside) DOS/4GW for post-install usage.

There are no Arkady-prepared versions for later ones (and I made my
own rough "DOS only" .7z archives, which they now host, but that's
"everything for DOS", e.g. C/C++, help files, runtime sources, all
libraries for all models, all headers, extenders, etc.)

> >> The page referred to appears to be:
> >> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Alternative_Open_Watcom_distribution
>
> >That's old 1.7.1, and those .ZIPs prepared (apparently) by Arkady.
> >Anyone heard anything from him lately? Not me. In other words, he
> >never updated it for 1.8 or 1.9.
>
> How old it is is not relevant. Someone /did/ read the page and /did/
> download the minimum DOS install and /did/ find out that it did not
> work.

http://bugzilla.openwatcom.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1098

Bugzilla Bug 1098
Summary: dos4gw omission
Version: OW 1.7 [actually, 1.7.1, Arkady's separate .ZIPs hosted on
iBiblio for FreeDOS]
OS: Windows XP
Last modified: 2011-11-13 09:45:13 PST8PDT
Reporter: chuck

"
After downloading sets (2) and (6) of the zip files (for 1.7) to get a
minimal
C install on Win's XP, nothing worked... not even whelp... until
dos4gw.exe was
downloaded. Suggest adding this to list of minimum needed files as
shown on
download page.

GREAT JOB, you guys!

Thanks.
"

Okay, admittedly there is a lack of communication here. Somebody just
took it for granted that you need a DOS extender with Watcom tools.
(However, DJGPP, for instance, can work with DPMI alone, so for XP you
wouldn't need anything extra. I know it's not really worth mentioning
that, but it is indeed easy to get confused.)

> >> The problem appears to be at the bottom, where it states:
>
> >> There is also a minimal set (only C, no C++ / help / samples /
> >> debugger), which includes sets [2] and [6] above, consisting of 11
> >> files, or ~4.4 Mb.
>

> The point is that the suggested install is /too/ minimal: the programs
> don't run.

Okay.

> >> The problem being that neither [2] nor [6] include dos4gw. The
> >> suggestion, then, appears to be that "[4] (at least DOS4GW.ZIP)" be
> >> added to the list of sets in the "minimal set" described in the
> >> sentence quoted above.
>
> >> Is that correct or am I missing something?
>

> So editing the page (at the bottom) as indicated would be a reasonable
> thing to do?

The wiki (unsurprisingly?) doesn't seem to let average people (e.g.
me) create accounts anymore. Perhaps due to spam, dunno. So I can't
edit / fix this for you. Maybe that's the point, and that's why you're
posting here publicly? (Peter? Jiri? anyone?)

> It might be better still to work with Open Watcom as it exists, and
> not try to change it, when a solution (modifying the Wiki) clearly
> exists.

Well, like I said, Arkady is AWOL, I dunno where he is. He never
updated for 1.8 or 1.9 for FreeDOS, and nobody ever complained. Dunno.
Honestly, not to pick on anyone, but I don't know specifically why
anyone would want to use 1.7.1 instead of 1.9. AFAIK, FreeDOS compiles
the same with newer versions, though I can't remember trying myself
too much. (The people to ask specifically about that would be Bart
Oldemann or Jeremy Davis.) At least nobody has complained that I can
remember, though admittedly that's not saying much. In other words, I
don't know offhand of any tool even hinting at needing an older
version. (At one time, perhaps, but no longer.)

I assume "chuck" knows that this is a DOS-only minimal install, and
that just because it runs on WinXP doesn't mean it targets "native"
WinXP (Win32). Sure, it could if you add the right files, but that's
not what these .ZIP packages were primarily meant for.

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:16:48 -0800 (PST), Rugxulo <rug...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi again,

<snippo>

>On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
>wrote:

>> The point is that the suggested install is /too/ minimal: the programs
>> don't run.
>
>Okay.

<snip-a-tad-bit>

>> So editing the page (at the bottom) as indicated would be a reasonable
>> thing to do?
>
>The wiki (unsurprisingly?) doesn't seem to let average people (e.g.
>me) create accounts anymore. Perhaps due to spam, dunno. So I can't
>edit / fix this for you. Maybe that's the point, and that's why you're
>posting here publicly? (Peter? Jiri? anyone?)

Yes, I believe at least one individual was abusing the privilege
(something like "decorating" the pages with links to porn sites,
IIRC), so it was restricted

As it happens, I have had an account that allows me to edit the Wiki
(but not to upload files) for some time (for use with the wgml
reconstruction and the tutorial I wrote), and I just edited the page
in question. I hope it will be clear to anyone using it in the future.

Of course, as you have pointed out, since this is an older version, a
refresh to the current version might be advisable, since there appears
to be some interest. Or some other change.

As to why anyone would do 1.71 instead of 1.9, presumably it is
someone with limited computer resources getting what has been made
available. Perhaps, if he starts using it and likes OW, he will
eventually move to the current version.

I posted here just to be sure I understood the problem well enough to
fix it. Well, fix it in the sense of adding a note at the end. Whether
that is really fixing it or whether a better solution exists is
something I really cannot say.

I added a note about this to Bugzilla; however, my priveleges on
Bugzilla do not allow me to change the Status or record a Resolution,
which is probably for the best, since a true Resolution might require
something more than adding a note to the page. Perhaps Michal will
look at it some day and finalize it.