ArchLinux and UTF8

Bobonov · 2003-12-16 10:50:49

It is not the best place for this post but since we have to start from the kernel....

I tried to send and e-mail about this to the mailing list and I receved no answer so lets try by the forum.

Basically I started to think about that since samba 3.0 (that use UTF8 as
default) came out.

By looking at Archlinux:
Kernel NLS option is compiled with iso8859-1 (western european)
Kernel Remote filesystem NLS use cp437 (united state)
There is no iso10496/utf8 fonts in the system.

An interesting step for arch should be moving to utf8.
Opinion??

Nickm · 2003-12-16 13:53:31

If it's better I'd say yes.

what's the difference between the fonts we use and utf8 ??

Bobonov · 2003-12-16 15:28:40

Basically is this.
Normally you can't visualize all the possible chars in the world.
In fact you chose the "type of char" you want to see/support on your system.
For instance if you use iso8859-1 charset you can visualize accetend letters like òàùèìéç etc. basically the ones you find in western european language (like Italian French German Spanish Portugues....) but if you try to visualize something in Russian Bulgarian Rumenian etc. there are different kind of letters/accent and instead of the correct char you probably see question mark under windows or strange char with linux. Imagine if you try to read a japanese document.
This limitation of "chars quantity" was due to the necessity to use only 8 bit for the coding in order to save space in memory and hd.
Now modern computers have huge ammount of memory and so UTF8 came out.
Basically this standard provide the coding for any chars in the planet. By setting this on your computer and programs you are able to read any kin of document with any coding. Offcourse not everybody need it but anyway all the system (operating systems and programs) are moving to this standard.

Gyroplast · 2003-12-16 17:33:01

The reason why I still haven't moved to UTF is simple, my core applications don't support this charset yet, especially slrn, and I'm too lazy to hunt for patches (if there are any!). And since my main goal is not trying out funny new things but doing my work, I will not have UTF forced upon me as long as decent UTF support is uncommon. Whilst I applaud Arch's pioneering efforts in general, this conversion would need to be well thought out and it's implications researched.

Well, others are doing it already[tm], so it can't be that hard. But who knows the price RedHat et al paid for using UTF as default? I sure had trouble with a couple Gnome apps not recognizing my files anymore (okay, it's been about 1.5 years), so who'd be making sure that everything still works after the conversion?

Is here anyone who actually knows the intrinsics of moving over to UTF instead of relying on Google and fiddling around like I do?

My personal 2c,
Dennis

Bobonov · 2003-12-17 09:11:54

My post was not about "do it tomorrow". For sure move to utf8 need planing, and probably a long one to check exaclty what get lost in the moving.
It was just to open a discussion, see opinion, see if some of the developer are already looking at it etc. etc.
I relay on google. Surely I do not get for good the first post I found and what I find is not gold for me. But anyway it is a good start point.
Anyway is good what you find on the official applications site. I "discovered" that the following has utf8 support:
gtk2
gnome
kde
perl
samba
python
mysql
I stop here because I looked only for these but it is quite sure that there are more.

Arch Linux

#1 2003-12-16 10:50:49

ArchLinux and UTF8

#2 2003-12-16 13:53:31

Re: ArchLinux and UTF8

#3 2003-12-16 15:28:40

Re: ArchLinux and UTF8

#4 2003-12-16 17:33:01

Re: ArchLinux and UTF8

#5 2003-12-17 09:11:54

Re: ArchLinux and UTF8

Board footer