Beni Cherniavsky wrote: > BTW, win2k does have the option of switching the encoding used in > the 'A' APIs, it's just global and requires a reboot. > > Granted, it would take a lot of foresight to go this way back the > choice they made is still bad. In fact, they can still adopt UTF-8 > for the 'A' functions. I think it's a good idea even now.
As you said, it is already possible to set UTF-8 globally in Windows 2000. Just that not many people are willing to do so. Ask Windows developers and users for their opinions. You are looking on the point of view of a Linux developer/user regarding portability (I guess?). M$ wants everybody to use ONLY Windows and they don't care about portability. Once portability is not cared, their decision does not sound very bad. (Not that I like to use Windows all the time, or I wouldn't speak in this list; just trying to think from the Windows point of view.) > > When talking about the file system, I really like NTFS much better. > > Trusting you files to a complex undocumented FS is strange idea but > I'm digressing ;-). Liking it is one thing; trusting it is another. I like its features, and I wish Linux could have some of them. Period. > > if it is on an EXT2/3 partition or on a CD-ROM, then I am out of > > luck. Maybe the mount tool should do something to handle this? > > :-) > > > Probably. Recoding in the mount level would be both possible and > painless on program's APIs. An alternative would a tool to rename > all files, run once when switching the locale. I'm not aware of either > of these having been implemented, which is a hint: use UTF-8 ;-). Just FYI. There is a tool named convmv that can do the renaming. But I do not like the idea very much to modify in the file systems often. And what if the file system is read only? Best regards, Wu Yongwei -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
