Subject: Re: Architecture of Chinese Character Input Output System

From: Ng Liang Shing <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 02:38:50 MYT

I wrote:
> > The invasive approach enjoys (?) the benefits of information hiding. Here, the
> > running application need not be aware of the presence of the Chinese systems.
> > Therefore, in DOS and other operating systems, some (but not all) existing
> > programs can be ported for Chinese use at binaries level. The safe approach,
>                   ^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hu Bo replied:
> Why don't you say straight forward: No portation needed at all?
> As a user, it is much betterto have choice to test existing programs together
> with an existing Chinese system than to wait some applications ported for
> Chinese use in your "save" manner.
>
> A peer-to-peer comparison between C-Win and CStar shows that the "save"
> manner has often got many serious problems: For example, you have to
> have two different versions of Windows, of WinWord, of... It is often a
> very hard decision "what shall I do today, Chinese or non-Chinese?",
> since it is not a quick job to exit from one and then go into anthoer.

This is a good point.  I omitted it earlier for I could not possibly talk
about all aspects of the Chinese software.

My contrary point to the your argument above would be:

Your argument is good from the point of view of the users, but not the
programmers. When buying a natively non-Chinese apps, the user is effectively
paying the non-Chinese programmers and they are earning our money. (Pardon me
for sounding a little chauvinistic.) Then Chinese programmers loses many jobs.
If Chinese programmers make our own programs, and the Chinese users buys them,
then the Chinese programmers are earning money, not the non-Chinese.

This is what we said Don't let the fertilizer flow into the farm of others.
(Fei Shui Bu Liu Wai Ren Tian).

Another point that may be a better idea than using CStar, is to have a Chinese
Wordprocessor, for example, running in Standard Windows. (e.g. NJSTAR). Of
course, this is not as good as using CSTAR in the sense that CStar make all
other applications including Paintbrush etc Chinese. But a Chinese WP may be
easier to use (genuine Chinese interface) and is indeed safer than a patcher
like CStar.

Again, to have to buy separate Chinese software for separate applications may
be difficult for the users. But again, this gives the programmers oppotunity
to write more Chinese softwares and earn more money. This is of course better
than letting CSTar monopolises the revenue.

Third point:

Here, it may or may not be viable for a Chinese to write a heavy duty software
like Corel Draw. If it is not viable at the moment, to make Corel Draw
Chinese-compatible without overriding the system area, we can use many
features offered by Windows such as Clipboard, DDE and OLE! We edit Chinese
text using another small program, written by Chinese programmer, then cut and
paste it into Corel Draw. But I believe one day Chinese programmers will be
able to compete head to head with Corel Draw. And again, I think it is better
not to let the fertilizer flow into the farms of others.

Another approach would be to have Corel Draw Chinese-Compatible natively - let
the Corel's programmer add Chinese functions into Corel Draw at source level.
But to do this they need to employ Chinese programmers too.  So in this way,
the Chinese programmers also earn the money.

Microsoft need not sell two versions of Windows, Winword technically. They can
put Chinese functions into their Windows, Winword natively, without producing
a Chinese version, which also preserves all the English functions. I think
they only do this for business sake - so that the users have to buy two
versions of Windows, two versions of Winword. This is purely a business
stategy.

My definition of Chinese programmers is: programmers who write programs that
is able to process Chinese, it does not matter if the programmers themselves
are Chinese in the ethnic sense.

I wrote:
> > systems. Modern operating systems are towards this end. Hence invasive Chinese
> > system may dwindle with the end of the DOS era.

Hu Bo replied:
> But you have just shown that CStar is available on Windows.

This depends on your definition about Windows. I only Windows as a graphical
user interface for DOS. The reason that Cstar can survive in Windows is
because this version of Windows runs on DOS, which in turn is not robust - no
stringent memory protection - so CStar or any body can easily modify its
system area.

The newer Windows may be different. If as claimed, they are a proper Operating
System at its own right. Then, perhaps it would not be so easy for CStar to
override the system area, though we do not know if it is possible or
impossible as yet. But if it is possible to patch OS/2 at binaries level to
enable Chinese, then it should be possible for the newer Windows. But have any
one heard of patching OS/2 for Chinese?

--
Ng Liang Shing            |   This is an Internet node host inside
Sungai Petani, Malaysia   |   an old 286.  A few years back, this place
[email-masked]          |   was not more than a small town.