Message-ID: <3B1D3ED0.F093362C@compuserve.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:19:28 +0200
From: Utz Zarwell <UtzZarwell AT compuserve DOT de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD CSO 2.0  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: de,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: Proposal for new partition type IDs for use with future DOSes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

"Matthias Paul"

>IBM and PowerQuest have already established a set of partition
>IDs for "hidden" partitions. Originally used by the OS/2 and
>PowerQuest Boot Manager and Partition Magic they have
>meanwhile evolved into a quasi-standard and are also
>supported by other partitioning software and boot managers.

Indeed. I use patition type 06h/16h switching to hide 
DRDOS / WIN9 to the other.
In fact I thought it is standard  :)


>Maybe those IDs are now so
>much in common use, they can hardly be named "hidden" any more?

Installing SuSE linux:
"Oh my dear there is a dos partition.
May I mount it as vfat at /win/c ?"

=:0)


to the suggested solutions for non LFN patition types
what were doing is applying a patch to patch that ...
I guess only a few of the very interested understand.
How about the big number of the big companies who dont care?

Even a normative power eg T13 will hardly fight back anarchy
if this has already been so widely spread.

Ahh, the bad thing already happend with squeezing LFN into
DIR entries. 
Oh I see, pessimistic and contraproductive. I should shut up. :(

And youre completely right, the primary/extended partition 
approach is to overcome.
Obviously, LFN information should be stored completely outside
DIR entries. Some kind of description file isnt too bad idea, cause
compatibilty (with old FAT!) is inherent.


In the end you have two scenarios.
One is to stay true compatible with M$DOS7.1+
If I get it right - you cannot simply roll your own because of
some patent hassle.
maybe a thought about calculated illegality is not illegal itself ;-)
I could imagine anonymous offering of a tsr, gnutellalike spreading
you see where we go :-((
considering the hundreds of installations of the abovementioned
M$DOS with its GUI... youre simply lost.

The other is strictly dividing the worlds.
Then its not important how you do it.
It only is to handle in the _other DOS world_
And then you dont even need a FAT.
ok, keep the real FAT for the 286 2MB 40MB
but who wants 20GB+ who has 386++
	why not a reiserfs	:-))


Without big normative power
youll always wait in the corner until the big companie 
comes and pulls you right out of th 0C5h and 0F0h corner.
and then you go to the next, awaiting the next kick.
sorry, but I guess none of us has the power to force a companie
_to withdraw a product_ because it violates ISO DIN RFC 123456 .
And that would be the point.


Introducing new types out of 0FFh without respected normes is 
illusion. The dangerous idea with different types pointing to 
the same area is only valid for a short period. 
It has to be rechecked each time a new (version) of OS
appeares. Sorry, its a hack not a solution.


An _accepted_ escaping value would give possibilities.
But were at the same point.
_standards_

If your enthusiasm triggers such a process 
that would be great.


all the best,
Utz