Contributed by phessler on from the como-estas dept.
(Comments are closed)
OpenBSD Journal
Contributed by phessler on from the como-estas dept.
(Comments are closed)
Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]
By Johan M:son (62.119.71.154) on
Comments
By phessler (208.201.244.164) on
By Anonymous Coward (82.182.149.44) on
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) lost.goblin@gmail.com on
Wasn't OpenBSD supposed to stay simple and sane? And follow the True Unix Path rather than the Shitwaris and GNU madness?
Add UTF-8 support and forget all this insanity.
Comments
By phessler (208.201.244.164) on
if you know of a cleaner way, then go ahead and implement it.
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
UTF-8 support is this: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/utf.html
Hasn't people learned anything from the locale debacle on linux and Shitwaris?
I certainly was not hoping to see one of the most painful and nightmarish bits of Linux imported into OpenBSD, I thought only FreeBSD and NetBSD were Linux wanabees.
Comments
By m0rf (68.104.57.241) on
> No, this is a mountain of crap.
when are you going to stop talking and step up and implement your solution?
The OpenBSD Developers have come up with a plan and are implementing it, what have you done?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (216.107.0.44) on
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
What is the problem again? that OpenBSD is not Loonix or Shitwaris? Well, _that_ is the only reason I use OpenBSD, because it didn't go down the same path as people that never understood Unix.
As for UTF-8, maybe you should check the ports tree some time, all the necessary bits are there.
Comments
By Nate (65.94.96.26) on
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
You have not checked carefully enough:
http://swtch.com/plan9port/unix/ (MIT License)
inferno-utils.tar.gz (MIT License)
Most of this is already in ports, and what is missing is on it's way.
Comments
By Nate (65.94.96.26) on
In this, I concede your victory, this code could theoretically be used, but that still does not give Marc a patch.
By Anonymous Coward (194.109.254.76) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.125.80.121) on
"loonix" and "shitwaris" ? What are you, a 15-year old?
Tell me about it; kids these days can't spell. It should be "Lunix", and "Slowaris". ;-P
By Anonymous Coward (218.214.226.34) on
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (218.214.226.34) on
By Jörg Sonnenberger (139.30.252.72) joerg@leaf.dragonflybsd.org on
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix01/freenix01/full_papers/hagino/hagino_html/
Comments
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
I have played enough with japanese applications to know that I will welcome a simplification of input methods, for instance...
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (210.233.106.4) on
By Nate (65.94.96.26) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.182.149.44) on
"Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad." -- Rob Pike circa 1991
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
openbsd is in many respects one of the more "conservative" unix variants.
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
I use OpenBSD because it's the only Unix variant that remains minimally true to it's roots and to the original Unix principles and values.
Including something like Citrus in OpenBSD is a slap in the face of those principles and values.
Comments
By Hans Insulander (192.195.135.35) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.58.124.197) on
And seriously, the generation of tomorrow will be forced to learn English anyhow!
Do you think that we shall start writing comment in the source code in multiple languages? Start undeadly.[dk,tw,co.uk,nu] ?
My point is: it’s more cost effective to do it all in one language!
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/ch-intro.en.html :
“Displaying messages by the program in the users' native languages.” – this is where the bloat and incorrectness comes!
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.58.124.197) on
By Hans Insulander (192.195.135.35) on
No one wants to translate the source comments, nor would anyone want localized binary names. That would be silly.
Why should it not be possible to use your own language when writing mails/documents/whatever in OpenBSD? All these issues were fixed in Windows/Macos and most Unixes years ago, why not fix it in OpenBSD too.
It's not like all these languages are going away, or that those "extra" characters are'nt needed.
I do however see the practical side of things with bugs and bloat, but that's not reason enough to completely ignore most of the world.
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
gettext and whchar and the rest of that crap are _not_ UTF-8.
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
Half the population of the world can't read or write, and about 90% aren't anywhere near a computer. That doesn't mean that OpenBSD is useless to them, or it's your computer useless to you because it only understands ASM instructions? Or is the OS the phone company runs matter one bit as to what language you talk when you call friends in Japan?
Again, Unix was never designed to be "localized", and horrible hacks to pretend it can be done are 1) a waste of time 2) create a nightmarish abomination as a result.
From looking at Linux and all other *NIX that have tried to do it it's rather obvious how stupid and pointless this task is. The only reason that is done is 1) to make nationalistic fundamentalists happy, 2) to make government with pointless procurement rules happy; I don't think OpenBSD should care much for either.
Comments
By Ido (80.178.196.115) on
The whole computer world is English-centric, because most of the fundamental technologies were developed in the US, and any computer user must accept this fact, but it doesn't mean EVERYONE must use only the One True Language.
Things like translating command names are just plain stupid, that's not what at the center of discussion, IMO.
My English is as good as anyone's, but it's not my mother tongue.
I want my OS to support filenames in my mother tongue (which doesn't utilize the Latin alphabet), doubtlessly a complicated issue.
Do you know how to achieve this without integrating such support into the OS itself (filesystem code, system utils, etc.)?
Please share if you do.
Telling everyone to 'just use English and keep it simple' is both ignorant and patronizing.
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
And if you have a half a clue, you will use UTF-8, which can encode every character ever created, and then some more.
By Bert (216.175.250.42) blambert at thepresidency dot org on
If you don't like it, fork! I suggest AngloBSD for a name.
Frankly, this is something that every os that isn't designed to be used solely in non-user interactive settings is eventually going to have to do. Not everyone uses European character sets (hell, even ascii lacks characters that many Europeans use).
Not every user is going to learn English. It's a fact of life. Deal with it.
Theo was right.
Whiners scale really well.
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
There are two questions:
1) Should OpenBSD let users work with text and files containing characters that are not part of ASCII? The answer is a resounding YES; and how to do it is with UTF-8, the code is already there, so there is little, if anything, left to be done.
2) Should OpenBSD buy into the "localization" and "internationalization" hype and follow Linux and other Unixes into the nightmarish hell of locales and whchar? The answer is a resounding NO.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.104.57.241) on
This is where OpenBSD is going, and until you actually do something beyond bitching on undeadly, you will have no influence on that.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.125.80.121) on
It is not up to you in what direction OpenBSD goes
No, but he/she can influence it.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (199.185.136.158) on
get real
By djm@ (218.214.226.34) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.125.25.70) on
Influence is contributed code and patches
That helps, and so does Mindshare.
I'm glad the person is making noise, even if that is all they can do. I welcome the attention to the possibility of a better alternative.
I can't think about a better time to be loud about this issue considering that the Hackathon is about to start. I would be surprised if no one there brings it up atleast once.
Comments
By djm@ (203.217.30.86) on
By Lars Hansson (203.65.245.7) lars@unet.net.ph on
By Frank Denis (213.41.131.17) on http://www.00f.net
By Nate (65.94.96.26) on
After you've gaged how many people there are bring this before the list and ask the developers if there is one amoung them looking to make some money by doing the integrating and find out how much they'd want for it.
Ask Theo if he'd accept such a thing in if you and your posse paid the sum.
Do a drive for the funds, pay the developer, have it commited.
Of course, each step requires sucess at the prior step, but you should get the idea.
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
THE CODE TO SUPPORT UTF-8 IS ALREADY IN THE PORTS TREE!
(and most of the OS dosen't care about it anyway)
What we are trying here is to save OpenBSD from being infested with one of the worst Linux/PoSix pests, what should we provide? a reverse patch removing all that crap? If so, it will take not much more than ten minutes to generate one.
Comments
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
Most packages that use locales are _broken_, I have got quite a few of them to crash or produce random behavior just based on the locale settings, even when the input was plain ASCII!
Locale handling on Unix is a joke, it has never worked, and it never will, pretending that adding that crap to OpenBSD will be not create a nightmare of broken crud is being delusional.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (203.217.30.86) on
By Damien (213.41.138.23) on
Now if you claim you don't want a unix system that respect such standards i'm supposing you completely miss the point.
Also what exactly is the problem with it ? You give no argument that demonstrate it is "bad". And if there is one thing that is good with linux distributions then it's certainly the fact they try to implement standards.