🚀 go-pugleaf

About two weeks ago I send out a request for partition table system
indices, and here are the responses. If there is enough interest, I
will maintain this table.

	Mnemonic	ID	Description
	----------------------------------------------------------
	DOS-12		0x01	MS-DOS, 12-bit FAT
	XENIX / 	0x02	Xenix root
	XENIX /usr	0x03	Xenix user
	DOS-16		0x04	MS-DOS, 16-bit FAT
	DOS-EXT 	0x05	MS-DOS Extended
	DOS-BIG 	0x06	MS-DOS Large
	HPFS		0x07	OS/2 High Performance File System
	QNX		0x07	QNX
	AX		0x07	Advanced Unix
	AIX		0x08	A/IX
	AIX boot	0x09	bootable A/IX partition
	OPUS		0x10	Opus
	VENIX/286	0x40	Venix 80286
	NOVELL		0x51	possibly Novell
	CP/M		0x52	CP/M
	386/IX		0x63	386/IX
	UPORT/386	0x63	Microport's V/386
	NOVELL		0x64	Novell
	PC/IX		0x75	PC/IX
	MINIX-OLD	0x80	pre 1.4b Minix
	MINIX		0x81	Minix partition
	AMOEBA		0x93	Amoeba
	BADBLK		0x94	Amoeba's bad block partition
	CCP/M		0xDB	Concurrent CP/M
	DOS-SCND	0xF2	Second Dos partition, some 3.2 and all 3.3+
	BADTRK		0xFF	Bad track table

Having composed this list, I'm still stuck with the following questions:

The system index 0x07 seems to be very popular, at least three systems
are using it (OS/2, QNX, and AX). This seems weird, I would expect that
at least in these lower regions there would be some coordination.

If the system index 0x63 (386/IX and UPORT/386) actually a generic system
ID for V/386 ?

The DOS-SCND partition is odd, at least I've never seen it before. Could
somebody check this out, please ?

Does any body know the format of the bad track table (0xFF) ?

Thanks to ge@dutlru1.tudelft.nl, john@jwt.UUCP, mitchell@mdi.com,
stevesa@beaver.cs.washington.edu, and tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de.

Leendert

P.s. Please send updates, additions, deletions, etc. to leendert@cs.vu.nl


--
Leendert van Doorn 			   		<leendert@cs.vu.nl>
Vrije Universiteit / Dept. of Maths. & Comp. Sc.
Amoeba project / De Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam / The Netherlands