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

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 11:20:40AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> 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 :-).

Yep, UTF-16 is the standard way of doing that.

> > [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... :-).

I misunderstood -- I thought you were suggesting that the only need to
stretch to 2^32 instead of 2^16 was to accomodate Klingon speakers.  No,
traditional Chinese fits in Unicode 3.0 just fine. :)

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20011218/484b0e26/attachment.bin