[OT] Re: Minor issue in chapter 7 <Not critical>

Alexander E. Patrakov patrakov at ums.usu.ru
Fri Jun 9 21:16:35 PDT 2006


Dan Nicholson wrote:
> OK, I'll accept that.  However, why bother?  If you're locale has a
> UTF-8 character set available, it provides so much more coverage.
> I feel like I would be limited with an ISO-8859-1 locale.  Is the point
> of your effort to not limit possiblities?  Just curious.

No, the goal of my effort is only to stay optionally compatible with Fedora 
Core. If you use a non-UTF-8 locale, you are limited in the choice of 
_characters_ you can use in the terminal. This restriction doesn't apply to 
Qt-based or Gtk2-based programs.

If you use an UTF-8 based locale, you will be limited in the choice of 
_applications_: you can't use "watch", "tr [:upper:] [:lower:]", "a2ps", 
"enscript", XFCE printing module for text files, "links", "mc", "zsh", and, 
until recent BLFS changes, "mkisofs" and "pine", if you care about non-ASCII 
characters. If you depend on at least one broken-in-UTF-8 application (and I am 
sure you do, because there are so many of them), UTF-8 is not better than 7-bit 
ASCII. So, in this case, UTF-8 is more limiting in the choice of characters, 
because some apps can't use it. That's why even now 50% of Russians undo 
RedHat's UTFization of Fedora.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list