CIFS vs. NFS and other filesystems (was Client for Samba Networks)

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:16:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 11:00:46AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> 
> Meaning that they implemented UTF-16, or some other variable-length
> Unicode encoding using 16-bit widechars?

I think it's UTF-16 (that's variable length with compose characters isn't
it ?). It's just that they're the only people who have. Microsoft didn't :-).

> In what sense is traditional Chinese[1] not a human language? :)  
> 
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
> 
> [1] "Ah," say the Unicode apologists, "but all modern Chinese documents
> are written using /simplified/ Chinese!"  True, but how would we feel if
> Unicode could be used for all human texts /except/ for Shakespeare,
> since he's dead and therefore obviously of no concern to computer
> standards?

So you're telling me that traditional Chinese has more than 2^32 characters.
Hmmmm. In that case, show me any human who could read such a language... :-).

Jeremy.