Xorg: Using the US International (altgr-intl variant) Keyboard Layout

TL;DR: If you want to sanely type French, German, Spanish, or other European languages on a standard US keyboard (101 or 104 keys), your only real option is the us layout with the (relatively new) altgr-intl variant.

I like to type in French and German sometimes because I study these languages for fun. For some time, I had used the fr and de X keyboard layouts to input special characters from these languages. However, it wasn’t until recently that I realized how most European layouts, such as fr and de, require that you have a 105-key keyboard. A 105-key keyboard looks exactly like the standard, full-sized IBM-style 104-key keyboard (i.e., IBM Model “M” 101-key keyboard plus 2 Windows keys and 1 “Menu entry” key on the bottom row), except that it has 1 more extra key on the row where the Shift keys are (and also has a “tall” Enter key with some of the existing keys on the right side rearranged a bit).

I personally use a 104-key keyboard (a Unicomp Space Saver 104, because that’s how I roll). Now, when I switched to the fr layout the other day, I wanted to type the word âme. Unfortunately, the circumflex dead key was not where it was supposed to be. This was because I only had 104 keys instead of 105, and during the process of switching forcibly to the fr layout, there was a malfunction in the conversion (rightfully so).

Now, the choice was to either buy a 105-key keyboard or just find an alternative 104-key layout that had dead keys. I didn’t want to buy a new 105-key keyboard because (1) the extra 1 key results in a squished, “square” looking left-Shift key and (2) the tall Enter key would make it more difficult for me to keep my fingers happy on the home row, since I’d have to stretch my pinky quite a bit to reach it, and (3) I just didn’t feel like spending another ~$100 for a keyboard (my Unicomp is still in excellent condition!).

So, I had to find a new keyboard layout that could process accented/non-English Latin characters better. The Canadian Multilingual Standard keyboard layout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#Canadian_Multilingual_Standard) looked very, very cool, but it was only for a 105-key keyboard. I then discovered a layout called the US International Standard keyboard layout, which enables you to type all the cool accented letters from French or German (and other European languages) while still retaining a QWERTY, 101/104 key design. This sounded great, until I realized that the tilde (~), backtick (`), single quote (‘) and other keys were dead keys. I.e., to type ‘~’ in this layout, you have to type ‘~’ followed by a space. This is horrible for programmers in Linux because the ~ key comes up everywhere (it’s a shell shortcut for the $HOME directory). To type a single quote character, you have to type (‘) followed by a space! Ugh. I’m sorry, but whoever designed this layout was obviously a European non-programmer who wanted to type English easier.

But then, all hope was not lost. When browsing all of the choices for the us keyboard layout variant under X (/usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base.lst), I found a curious variant called altgr-intl. A quick google search turned up this page, an email from the creator of this layout to the X developers: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/2007-July/026534.html. Here was a person whose desired usage fit perfectly with my own needs! Here’s a quote:

I regularly write four languages (Dutch, English, French and German)
on a US keyboard (Model M – © IBM 1984).

I dislike the International keyboard layout. Why do I have to press
two keys for a single quote (‘ followed the spacebar) just because the
‘ key is a dead-key that enables me to type an eacute (é)?

I decided to ‘hide’ the dead-keys behind AltGr (the right Alt key).
AltGr+’ followed by e gives me eacute (é). It also gives me
m² (AltGr+2).

Excellent! Apparently, this layout was so useful that it became included eventually into the upstream X codebase, as the altgr-intl variant for the standard us (QWERTY) keyboard layout. The most compelling feature of this layout is that all of the non-US keys are all hidden behind a single key: the right Alt key. If you don’t use the right Alt key, this layout behaves exactly the same as the regular plain us layout. How cool is that?! And what’s more, this layout makes it compatible with the standard 101-key or 104-key IBM-styled keyboards!

This variant deserves much more attention. Unfortunately, there seems to be little or no information about it other than the above-quoted email message. Also, I’ve noticed that it is capable of generating Norse characters as well, like þ and ø. There does not seem to be a simple keyboard layout picture on the internet to show all the keys. Anyway, I’ve been using it recently and it really does work great. There is no need for me to switch between the us, fr, and de layouts to get what I want. I just use this layout and that’s it. Take that, Canadian Multilingual Standard!

Here’s how to set it up: use either the setxkbmap program like this:

setxkbmap -rules evdev -model evdev -layout us -variant altgr-intl

in a script called by ~/.xinitrc, or use it directly in your keyboard xorg settings:

Section "InputClass"
    Identifier "Keyboard Defaults"
    MatchIsKeyboard "yes"
    Option  "XkbLayout" "us"
    Option  "XkbVariant" "altgr-intl"
EndSection

I personally prefer the script method because you can tweak it easily and reload it without restarting X. For me, I had to use the -rules evdev -model evdev options because -model pc104 would mess things up (probably due to an interaction with xmodmap and such in my ~/.xinitrc). Whatever you do, make sure everything works by testing out the AltGr (right Alt) key. For example, AltGr+a should result in ‘á’.

A couple caveats: Some keys like â and è (which are AltGr+6+a and AltGr+`+e (i.e., uses dead keys)) do not show up at all on urxvt. I’m guessing that the dead keys are broken for urxvt (or maybe it’s a bug with this layout; who knows). Luckily, I can just use a non-console app (like GVIM) to do my Euro-language typing, so it’s OK (although, eventually, I’ll run into this bug again when I start typing French emails from within mutt inside urxvt 20 years later… but by then it will be fixed, I’m sure.) Also, the nifty xkbprint utility can generate nice pictures of keyboard layouts (just do a google image search on it), but it’s currently missing (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/17541) from Arch Linux’s xorg-xkb-utils package. So, if you’re on Arch, you’ll have to experiment a bit to figure out the various AltGr+, and AltGr+Shift+ key combinations.

See also: Xorg: Switching Keyboard Layouts Consistenly and Reliably from Userspace

UPDATES:

  • October 30, 2011: I just found out that the dead keys bug in urxvt is actually a bug in ibus/SCIM (I use ibus, which relies on SCIM, to enter Japanese/Korean characters when I need to). I tried out uim, which is a bit more complicated (much less user friendly, although there are no technical defects, from what I can tell), and with uim, the dead keys work properly in urxvt. The actual bug report for ibus is here.
    So, use uim if you want to use the altgr-intl layout flawlessly, while still retaining CJK input functionality. Of course, if you never needed CJK input methods in the first place, this paragraph shouldn’t concern you at all.
  • December 7, 2011: Fix typo.
  • January 24, 2012: Fix grammar.
Advertisements

Things I Like About Git

Ever since around 2009-2010, developers have been engaging in an increasingly vocal debate about version control systems. I attribute this to the hugely popular rise of the distributed version control systems (DVCSs), namely Git and Mercurial. From my understanding, DVCSs in general are more powerful than nondistributed VCSs, because DVCSs can act just like nondistributed VCSs, but not vice versa. So, ultimately, all DVCSs give you extra flexibility, if you want it.

For various reasons, there is still an ongoing debate as to why one should use, for example, Git over Subversion (SVN). I will not address why there are still adamant SVN (or, gasp, CVS) users in the face of the rising tsunami tidal wave of DVCS adherence. Instead, I will talk about things I like about Git, because I’ve been using it almost daily for nearly three years now. My intention is not to add more flames to the ongoing debate, but to give the curious, version control virgins out there (these people do exist!) a brief rundown of why I like using Git. Hopefully, this post will help them ask the right questions before choosing a VCS to roll out in their own machines.

1. Git detects corrupt data.

Git uses an internal data structure to keep track of the repo. These objects, which are highly optimized data structures called blobs, are hashed with the SHA-1 algorithm. If suddenly a single byte gets corrupt (e.g., mechanical disk failure), Git will know immediately. And, in turn, you will know immediately.

Check out this quote from Linus Torvalds’ Git talk back in 2007:

“If you have disc corruption, if you have RAM corruption, if you have any kind of problems at all, git will notice them. It’s not a question of if. It’s a guarantee. You can have people who try to be malicious. They won’t succeed. You need to know exactly 20 bytes, you need to know 160-bit SHA-1 name of the top of your tree, and if you know that, you can trust your tree, all the way down, the whole history. You can have 10 years of history, you can have 100,000 files, you can have millions of revisions, and you can trust every single piece of it. Because git is so reliable and all the basic data structures are really really simple. And we check checksums. And we don’t check some UDP packet checksums that is a 16-bit sum of all the bytes. We check checksums that is considered cryptographically secure.

[I]t’s really about the ability to trust your data. I guarantee you, if you put your data in git, you can trust the fact that five years later, after it is converted from your harddisc to DVD to whatever new technology and you copied it along, five years later you can verify the data you get back out is the exact same data you put in. And that is something you really should look for in a source code management system.”

(BTW, Torvalds, opinionated as he is, has a very high signal-to-noise ratio and I highly recommend all of his talks.)

2. It’s distributed.

Because it is based on a distributed model of development, merging is easy. In fact, it is automatic, if there are no conflicting changes between the two commits to be merged. In practice, merge conflicts only occur as a result of poor planning. Sloppy developers, beware!

Another benefit of its distributed model is that it naturally lends itself to the task of backing up content across multiple machines.

3. It’s fast.

I can ask Git if any tracked files in a repo have been edited/changed with just one command: git diff. And it needs but a split second, even if my $PWD is not the repo’s root directory or if there are hundreds and thousands of tracked files littered across everywhere (because Git doesn’t think in terms of files, remember?)

4. It gives me surgical precision before and after committing changes.

Several things help me keep my commits small, and sane. The biggest factor is the index concept. Apparently, Git is the only VCS that gives you this tool! After editing your files, you go back and select only those chunks you want to be in the commit with git add -p. This way, you are free to change whatever you think is necessary in your files, without any nagging idea in the back of your mind going, “Hey, is this change exactly what you need/intended for your next commit?”

The other big factor is the rebase command. With rebase, I can do pretty much anything I want with my existing commits. I can reorder them. I can change their commit messages (known as amending). I can change the commits themselves (i.e., change the diffs). I can change 4 tiny commits into a single commit (known as squashing). I can even delete a commit (as long as the later commits do not rely on it). Essentially, you can rewrite your commits in any you like. This way, you can sanitize your commits in a logical way, regardless of work history.

Other Thoughts

I could go on, but the remaining points don’t have as much “oomph” as the ones listed already. I fear that I am unable to see many of the “problems” with Git’s methodology and workflow, because I had the (un?)fortunate experience of learning Git as my first and only VCS. I learned concepts like the index, rebasing, committing, amending, branching, merging, pulling, and pushing all for the first time from Git. I also learned how to use Git by typing the core Git commands into a terminal (since I’m in there all the time anyway), so I have not been biased in favor of GUI-only operation (these days, tig is the only GUI tool I use — and only as a brief sanity check at that). Then again, I’ve never suffered data corruption, lost branches, or anything like that, so I’m probably doing things the right way in this whole VCS thingamajig.

Oh, and here are some aliases I use for Git:

alias g='git'
alias gdf="[[ \$(git diff | wc -l) -gt 0 ]] && git diff || echo No changes"
alias gdfc="[[ \$(git diff --cached | wc -l) -gt 0 ]] && git diff --cached || echo Index empty"
alias gst='git status'
alias gbr='git branch'
alias gcm='git commit'
alias gco='git checkout'
alias glg='git log'
alias gpl='git pull'
alias gps='git push'