Hallo Herr Ralf Quint, am Montag, 25. November 2019 um 18:43 schrieben Sie:
> On 11/25/2019 8:36 AM, TK Chia wrote: >>> One problem here is what I mentioned a lot of times in the past but >>> always got scoffed at is that these are highly technical apps but do not >>> have any proper technical documentation. And they are typical examples >>> of where "the documentation is in the source code" just doesn't work to >>> understand the inner workings, its limitations and hence being able to >>> fix and/or update the program. >> >> I see that Microsoft did publish a "Microsoft Extensible Firmware >> Initiative FAT32 File System Specification" --- it should give us a >> (better) idea of the requirements that dosfsck is working towards. > The existence of 3rd party technical specs is not the problem I am > referring to... Yes indeed. uncertainty of FAT32 specifications is (nad never was) a problem for chkdsk and friends. they have to to deal with a huge ways of possible problems. in practice, they will only check (and ideally even correct) a much smaller class of problems. And while it's possible to check for accordance to *some* specified details; it's hugely more difficult to implement a sensible solution. it's just engineering hours that are missing. >I ran freedos chkdsk and it said: >"fat32 not currently supported" all that said: why is nobody able to replace "fat32 not currently supported" by "fat32 not currently supported, please use DOSFSCK" or even (in 2019 we have made huge steps in artificial intelligence) run DOSFSCK automatically from CHKDSK. that's one of the reasons for open source, NO? Tom _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
