Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Conspiracy Theories and Unicode (Score 1) 416

> While there is a lot of effort to shoehorn
> Unicode into Unix and Unix software, the actual
> results are beyond miserable, precisely because
> Unicode does not work.

Ah, I understand now. Not that I am going to praise the Unix vendors' support of Unicode as the best and most usable around, but I suggest you try making that claim directly to the Unicode representatives working for Sun, Compaq and others, and see if you can pull off such a claim.

> ... thus getting blessed by Unicode consortium
> as compatible.

Wrong again, Alex. The Unix vendors added Unicode support because they perceived it to be in their commercial interest to support a universal character encoding standard that other vendors and standards were starting to make widespread use of, and which growing numbers of customers started to ask them to support.

The Unicode Consortium doesn't "bless" any vendor, and doesn't have any certification program that anyone needs to pass in order to be declared "compatible". People claim themselves conformant to the standard if they choose, and if their implementation is defective or non-conformant, they get beaten on by disappointed customers, not by the Unicode Consortium.

> UTF-8 can be "supported" in that way even by
> abacus, if that abacus is long enough and
> has at least 8 stones in a row, ...

Well, most of us also took elementary computer science, and learned that any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine. So I guess we should go to the NOAA weather modelers, when they run a weather simulation on a supercomputer, and let them know they could use a Turing machine, instead, eh?

UTF-8 on an abacus -- yes, I guess that *is* a strawman that we should all take *real* seriously.

> I have never in my life seen a filename in UTF-8
> outside of Unicoders' demos...

I presume you mean on Unix systems, where for most such systems, choice of UTF-8 for filenames would be problematical because they would run afoul of other parts of the system that don't handle them. Sure, such may be the case.

On the other hand, UTF-8 databases are now running routinely on Unix systems, and they work just fine, thank you.

> and I am Russian myself and have a lot of
> friends that speak Japanese.

Umm. And the relevance of that comment is what?

> So, again, Unix vendors' support of Unicode is
> in fact a lip service, ...

Implying that you think it is a cynically added feature to get a checkmark or a brownie point somewhere, and that they all think it is really doomed to the trashheap of history like OSI. I'm hardly going to take your word for it. I suggest you get some international architects for the Unix vendors to come on list and support your contentions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.