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

[Michael B Allen]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:32:42 -0600
Steve Langasek <vorlon at netexpress.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 03:35:33PM -0500, Michael B Allen wrote:
> > > The use of UCS-2 is as much a strength as it is a weakness;
> 
> > How do you know it's UCS-2 and not UTF-16?
> 
> UCS-2 is the encoding at the base of all of Microsoft's widechar APIs.  
> In Microsoft's language, it's the definition of Unicode.  Do you have 
> reason to believe that they've implemented UTF-16 on-the-wire in SMB,
> despite the fact that they sell neither clients nor servers that are
> capable of consuming characters outside of the 16-bit Unicode space? :)

One time I asked the linux-utf8 list what the best UCS-2LE encoding
options on the linux platform were for the purpose of writing SMB
encoding/decoding functionality and Peter Anvin told me that SMB used
UTF-16. Reasoning he could be mistaken I posed the question to this list
and CIFS-DISCUSS but did not provoke an answer. So I don't know for sure.

Mike

-- 
May The Source be with you.