LOADLIN to boot Wary?

[goossbears]

I have an old Pentium I-MMX 200MHz desktop PC with 64MB RAM, a 2.2GB hd, a 4X CD-ROM, and sucessfully have DOS 6.22 installed.

What modifications to DOS's LOADLIN Linux loader would I need to run Puppy Linux "Wary" as a Frugal Install in a logical partition on this low-end PC??

Some details on this.
- No, I cannot upgrade the available RAM with higher capacity hard-to-find 72-pin SIMMs that this desktop PC takes.
(- Needless to say, Windows 9x is NOT getting re-installed on this PC!)
- No also; I'm just not going to install Grub, Grub 2, or Grub4DOS on the hard drive (MBR) or on a floppy/cd to boot-up Wary....sorry.
- DOS is installed on the first 500MB partition of the hd (/dev/hda1) and I used DOS FDISK to partition the rest of the hd (~1.7GB) as an Extended partition (/dev/hda2)
- I was able to boot and use a DamnSmallLinux liveCD to create a swap partition of 128MB and an ext2 partition of about 1.6GB (/dev/hda5 and /dev/hda6 respectively), then used the same DSL liveCD to format the 1.6GB partition as ext3 for the Frugal Install of Wary
- The Wary liveCD build that seems to works best on booting this old PC is the alternative build with 2.6.31.14 uniprocessor "ide" kernel (see http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewCat=Wary&p=5 and http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02099 )

The 'hard-Puppy' installation guide at http://www.puppylinux.com/hard-puppy.htm suggests the following for doing a manual frugal install of PuppyLinux:

Some people like to do a frugal install of Puppy manually, and this is quite simple also. You choose what partition, then copy the files 'vmlinuz', 'initrd.gz' and 'pup_xxx.sfs' (and maybe 'z*.sfs') from the CD to the partition. Normally you would place the files at '/' in the hard drive partition, but Puppy has support for installing into a subdirectory.

Seems to me, then, that the 1st step is to boot the Wary alternative buildCD and then copy the three key files to the ext3 partition that I'd frugally install Wary onto.

As far as setting up DOS LOADLIN to boot Wary rather than setting up GrubX to do the same from the Puppy Wary Universal Installer, I found these links:
- The Loadlin+Win95/98/ME mini-HOWTO http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Loadlin+Win95-98-ME.html (it's almost essentially for DOS rather than Win9x!)
- The loadlin DOS-executables and tarballs download site http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/loadlin/
- The 'Setting up Loadlin' section of http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Install-Strategies/x349.html

From these series of links as well as the hard-Puppy one, I'm thinking that THIS might very well work:

• - Mount both the DOS partition and the ext3 partition.
  - Copy the Wary vmlinuz and initrd.gz files from the ext3 partition to the DOS C:\<subdirectory> where LOADLIN.EXE resides
  - Reboot into native DOS and then run Wary by the commandstring

  Code: Select all

  C:\<subdirectory>\loadlin vmlinuz root=/dev/hda6 initrd=initrd.gz

Does all this make sense before I rashly do this and potentially cause a kernel Puppy Panic or something else (worse )

Thanks for feedback or even for further references on this

[RetroTechGuy]

Reboot into native DOS and then run Wary by the commandstring

Code: Select all

C:\<subdirectory>\loadlin vmlinuz root=/dev/hda6 initrd=initrd.gz

Does all this make sense before I rashly do this and potentially cause a kernel Puppy Panic or something else (worse )

Thanks for feedback or further references on this

Many years ago, I used to do it like this:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 116#405116

Note: the zip file contains a very old version of loadlin, and my batch file to launch linux -- it is possible that command line options have changed -- so confirm before using.

You might also find this thread useful: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=62775

I think the primary change from that time is that Wary may run on some/most older machines (and I note that I managed to run Lupu 5.20 on a 300 MHz laptop)

The 64MB RAM is going to be a problem, so plan on adding a larger swap. I use the general rule of thumb that RAM+Swap = 512MB (I prefer more).

Can you locate more RAM? Is it PC100? How many slots?

BTW ttuuxxx's 2.14 versions can be found here: http://www.smokey01.com/ttuuxxx/2.14X/iso-sfs/

[tikbalang]

loadlin has been updated to fix kernel 2.6 issues:

LOADLIN.EXE (DOS) -- boots linux from DOS
http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/loadlin/


i switched to linld back when loadlin went bad.

LINLD.COM (DOS) -- boots linux from DOS
http://busybox.net/~vda/linld/


1. dump iso contents to \WARY
2. have linld.com available in path or in the same folder as \WARY
3. add these two files: wary.bat (startup), wary.cl (config).

Code: Select all

:: WARY.BAT
@echo off
linld.com image=/wary/vmlinuz initrd=/wary/initrd.gz cl=@wary.cl %1 %2 %3

Code: Select all

#WARY.CL
psubdir=wary
pkeys=us
acpi=off

[tikbalang]

* * * I M P O R T A N T * * *

if you are working on a purely DOS mode, you will need an LFN provider when copying puppy core files from the iso. wary 5.1.2 started using long filenames with "puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs".

[RetroTechGuy]

* * * I M P O R T A N T * * *

if you are working on a purely DOS mode, you will need an LFN provider when copying puppy core files from the iso. wary 5.1.2 started using long filenames with "puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs".

And if you're adept at the command line (mount, umount, cp), and can boot from a 3.5" floppy:

http://www.toms.net/rb/

[Bruce B]

Code: Select all

linld.com image=/wary/vmlinuz initrd=/wary/initrd.gz cl=@wary.cl %1 %2 %3

This is why I would use (grub.exe which is a single file just as linld.com is a single file).

The command you send on the DOS prompt cannot exceed 128 bytes. To keep it safe I try and stay under 127 bytes. More than the limit gets truncated.

Grub.exe handles the long strings internally. Any limits to the command length in menu.lst would be Grub limits and not DOS command.com limits.

If you want to send commands longer than 128 bytes on the prompt, I think the free 4dos interpreter handles up to 256 bytes.

~

[Bruce B]

* * * I M P O R T A N T * * *

if you are working on a purely DOS mode, you will need an LFN provider when copying puppy core files from the iso. wary 5.1.2 started using long filenames with "puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs".

Having never used Wary, I didn't and don't know first hand they did this. I'll work on the assumption this is true, about the LFN.

FAT16 or FAT32 has limits. It can't store the filename puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs.

It also couldn't store pupwary.sfs. It would store it as: PUPWARY.SFS

The appearance of the LFN is an appearance only. The appearance of the lower case name is the same an - appearance.

When the file name is not a true SFN, the LFN extender makes and/or reads a hidden volume label associated with the true SFN and works with the hidden volume label as an alias.

I think if the name is puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs and we haven't had complaints, and if what I say is true, that this name cannot be stored as a filename on the FAT, then something is working around this by using the alias.

My first guess is GRUB is doing the hidden volume alias translation.

~

[Bruce B]

This command, entered directly, is way under the limit. You have several bytes to work with.

Code: Select all

linld.com image=/wary/vmlinuz initrd=/wary/initrd.gz psubdir=wary pkeys=us acpi=off

~

[RetroTechGuy]

FAT16 or FAT32 has limits. It can't store the filename puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs.

It is possible that Fat16 may be limited to 8.3 filenames, but Fat32 can certainly handle very long names. The problem is that plain DOS cannot name, or understand the long filenames (the DOS command window under Win98 and on sort-of understands the long names).

IIRC, the long filename capability was created by generating some of of controlled "error", which tells a LFN-aware OS that there is more to the name than the 8.3 it sees in the FAT table...

I regularly write very long filenames on my Fat32 flash drive (Win98 thru Win7, as well as Linux). For example, pulling up a saved .html file from the list here, I have a file named: "Teaching PUPPY to SAMBA.htm". Using simple DOS (not running under a window command prompt Win98 thru Win7), it would display as: "TEACHIN~.HTM"

Edit: It appears that FreeDOS can be made to understand ling file names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeDOS#File_systems

Boot floppy Instructions: http://www.freedos.org/freedos/news/technote/222.html

Boot floppy Image: http://jorisvr.nl/freedos.html

DOSLFN: http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=doslfn

Oh, you can can get FreeDOS USB support, as well... http://www.bootdisk.com/usb.htm

[Bruce B]

RetroTechGuy,

I'll start at the ultimate final conclusion. You've been lied to and scammed. Which is fine, not fine, but if you believe Microsoft PR, you deserve what you get. Which in this case is a misunderstanding, which was intentional.

Sadly,


Bruce

~

Sure, I'll come back and go over the fine points. But please hold your horses. The reason why is you don't want to be an unwilling chump for deceivers.

~

[Bruce B]

How does one find the truth?

For example, Windows 95 did away with DOS. That's what they said.

As for me, I knew it was they said is not true. I went along checking out the MS-DOS 7, and comparing it against the earlier versions.

A DOS that doesn't exist, right? I happy with it.

I'm not the Loony tune, those are the people who believed the scam and made fools of themselves in the process believing in no DOS.

It is possible that Fat16 may be limited to 8.3 filenames, but Fat32 can certainly handle very long names.

The possibility is easy to disprove. The old FAT12 which is used today on floppy disks can handle the LFN.

FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 all handle the SFN and the LFN in their native format.

For proof, copy a LFN to the floppy or FAT16 and read the LFN if you copied the file when using an extender. The Linux mount should provide the necessary extender to make this test.

About VFAT. It doesn't exist, not there, never was. The V stands for Virtual. In this case - it simulates and performs the function of something that is not there - an actual long file name.

We have FAT and VFAT. But FAT or VFAT - the actual disk format doesn't change, it is still the same thing.

~

[Bruce B]

I learned about the false LFN with a disk editor.

A mere disk editor could burst peoples bubbles. That is - if they believed in Microsoft and LFNs and arrived at the logical misunderstanding.

Some arguments

Windows 95 had an upgrade. People who had an earlier version of Windows could run the upgrade without reformatting. They could keep the Windows 3.11 and have the new Windows 95 as an install option.

If the filesystem had a DOS 5 format, that was swell. All the support for the LFN was already in the File Allocation Table. The reason why all the support was already there is - because no support was ever there or necessary.

The DOS 8.3 convention and limit was not overcome directly. It was overcome by implementing an aliasing system in the form a hidden volume label and associating it with the SFN.

The LFN support was a Microsoft bolt-on. But then if one figures the foundation of Windows was DOS - about everything is a bolt-on.

Microsoft didn't bolt the extender at the DOS level. They bolted the extender on the Windows layer.

Some third party software bolts the support on at the DOS level. LFNDOS and DOSLFN come to mind as extensions to provide this support.

~

[RetroTechGuy]

RetroTechGuy,

I'll start at the ultimate final conclusion. You've been lied to and scammed. Which is fine, not fine, but if you believe Microsoft PR, you deserve what you get. Which in this case is a misunderstanding, which was intentional.

Having a bad day?

FAT16 or FAT32 has limits. It can't store the filename puppy_wary_5.1.2.sfs.

[Béèm]

RTG, and you run DOS?

[RetroTechGuy]

RTG, and you run DOS?

I run DOS quite regularly. Though I typically run it as a shell, under Windows system. I also run DOSEMU (under Puppy).

Through Win98/ME, DOS was the underlying OS, and Windows sat on top. At Win2K, the Windows became the "shell", and a "DOS Shell" could be launched from it -- though it is not entirely compatible, or reliable DOS.
(Edit: I should clarify that the DOS window in Win2K and up is a LFN-aware emulator -- and an unreliable one at that)

That is, in Win98 you could tell the computer to "Shut Down to DOS", and it would drop you to a standard (8.3 format) DOS command prompt. "Win" would relaunch Win98. The command prompt under Win98 can copy long filenames, provided you don't specify the name it sees -- that is, tell it to copy "Be*.*" as opposed to "BEEMFIL~.TXT" (supposing the file is "Beems Long Filenamed Directory.txt")
(Edit: change same 8.3 filename to all upcase)

The command shell under WinXP and Win7 expands the filename, and encloses it in quotes, when you hit tab: copy "Beems Long Filenamed Directory.txt" e:\tmp\

However, running my fortran code from the WinXP and Win7 command prompts is unreliable -- sometime it will run, sometimes not. Repeating an attempt to run sometimes causes it to run... Very goofy.

Edit: BTW, this is rather consistent with my recollection, that they did some goofy crap, that kludge LFN into their existing system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Alloc ... file_names

[Béèm]

RTG, I mean your picture for Bruce B you posted was one you took when you were running plain DOS, is it?

[RetroTechGuy]

RTG, I mean your picture for Bruce B you posted was one you took when you were running plain DOS, is it?

No, that image was taken while running from Puppy 5.20. DOS would display the name in 8.3 format -- the point was that you can create such filenames on a Fat32 (which was perhaps thought to be the OP problem).

Other than in floppies, I don't know that anyone runs Fat12 or 16 any more (unless you are stuck with Win95 compatibility, why would you?...)

I don't have a screen capture for DOS, but I could put those files on my HDD, reboot into DOS, and take a photo, if there was enough interest (as DOS also doesn't "know" USB, without an add-on). My HDD is also Fat32 format, so it would be an equivalent test. And, of course, I won't have a GUI, so there won't be any "pretty" windowing system.

However, even though DOS only "sees" 8.3, a LFN aware OS will see the long name. It's just a matter of getting it copied onto the HDD without corrupting the filename (which simple DOS will corrupt).

Of course, Tom's Root Boot would allow you to boot from floppy, and perform those tasks without corrupting the LFN. And it appears that FreeDOS would also (though I'm not so familiar with that).

[Béèm]

The OP is running DOS 6.22 and thus restricted to the 8.3 format.
Which is what Bruce B explained. And the names of the puppy files would be difficult, if not impossible to read in the 8.3 format and have a successful boot.

[RetroTechGuy]

The OP is running DOS 6.22 and thus restricted to the 8.3 format.

Yes, that is correct. The Operating System is limited to 8.3, however the HDD is not.

Which is what Bruce B explained. And the names of the puppy files would be difficult, if not impossible to read in the 8.3 format and have a successful boot.

If he can get the SFS and associated files copied onto the HDD, and boot with Tom's Root Boot (Linux), he could rename the files to the correct names. But he will need to be familiar with the Linux command prompt (so as to mount the HDD, rename the file, and unmount the HDD).

Without booting the CD directly, or running FreeDOS, that would be my best guess.

Edit: Or if he would pull his hard disk and put it in a machine that can handle LFNs, he could copy them to the drive.

[Béèm]

He could boot from the CD and prepare manually his FRUGAL install.
The two important files to start, vmluniz and initrd.gz respect the 8.3 format, so loadlin wouldn't have a problem with it.
Once the linux kernel is loaded, then indeed the puppy sfs file could be read as the '8.3 period' is over by then, the kernel not being restricted to the 8. format.