On Friday 22 June 2007 07:29, Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CD-ROMs have 2304 byte raw sectors.
2048 + 256 for ECC, both of which are powers of two. Even if you use the
2304 raw bytes, that is a multiple of 2^8 bytes, and not even divisible by
10^1.
Powers of 2 are everywhere. I have
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:29:47PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:11:23PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
You seem to claim that binary units (ie powers of 2) are natural
everywhere related to computers, but I disagree.
Not everywhere
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think Ben's point is that we don't know.
You seem to claim that binary units (ie powers of 2) are natural
everywhere related to computers, but I disagree. It's natural for
memory and structures like it, but not for bitstream
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam
Morris
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:11:23 -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
How many packages can you name
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:11:23PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
The problem is that *many* cases are incorrect; we can't say that
*all* of them are. That uncertainty is not amenable to a mindless text
substitution
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:32:09AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think Ben's point is that we don't know.
You seem to claim that binary units (ie powers of 2) are natural
everywhere related to computers, but I disagree. It's
Little useful or helpful has been said in this thread for a while now.
Please don't continue the discussion, at least on debian-devel.
(Sorry to be so blunt.)
--
Rule #13 for successful communication: don't do Latin quotations
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 03:22:10AM]:
snipped
Sure, but it makes it possible to make it _right_ in a good portion of
situations. The people who really need binary units can make clear what
they are doing there. Otherwise
Am 2007-06-15 17:36:33, schrieb Ivan Jager:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. But you can't infer which one (1000 or 1024) MB mean. When you buy
a disk, what do the vendor says the capacity is? 80 GB. But your
software states it is no more than 75GB. What the fuck!? If GiB is
Hi Wes,
I am sitting on my line but does this mean we sould use
n 2B
n k2B = kilo Byte with power of 2
n M2B = Mega Byte with power of 2
n G2B = Giga Byte with power of 2
n T2B = Tera Byte with power of 2
?
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 06:39:24PM]:
It's not that I can't *think* of any problems. It's that I, like several
other people here, I don't *have* said problems with the programs I use,
and I don't particularly care to have that fixed. Just because you can't
tell whether
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 08:28:33 Michelle Konzack wrote:
I am sitting on my line but does this mean we sould use
n 2B
n k2B = kilo Byte with power of 2
n M2B = Mega Byte with power of 2
n G2B = Giga Byte with power of 2
n T2B = Tera Byte with power of 2
No, we
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a shell for people who don't remember what the output of their
commands mean:
#!/bin/bash
while echo -n '$ '; read cmd line; do
man $cmd | cat;
eval $cmd $line | sed
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:11:23 -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
How many packages can you name that measure bytes in powers of 10? Are
there any?
debian-installer does so (unless you are creating LVM Logical Volumes, in
which case the units that you specify volume sizes in are base-2, but the
units
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:11:23PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
The problem is that *many* cases are incorrect; we can't say that
*all* of them are. That uncertainty is not amenable to a mindless text
substitution without judgement of each case. The solution
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:43:53 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 15 juin 2007 ?? 17:36 -0400, Ivan Jager a ??crit :
Yes. Any time the unit is bytes. There is even a standard for it.
I must have missed that one. Could you point us to this
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
[re added the relevant quote]
The difference being that digital specifications for things like
storage capacity and memory are not measured. They are calculated, and
in those
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Fri, Jun 15 2007, 05:36:33PM]:
How about when you buy an 80 GB disk, and you know it's 80 * 10^9 bytes,
but your software says /home only has 79 GB and you know it means
79 * 10^9 bytes?
First, it would hardly say 79GB.
Ivan Jager wrote:
I think you missed the point. The only times it is not rounded is when
the user is specifying a size. (And even then it is sometimes rounded.)
Rounding doesn't render distinguishing between GB and GiB useless,
except perhaps in the extreme case when you're *only* interested in
Ivan Jager wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Fri, Jun 15 2007, 05:36:33PM]:
[...]
Should we also add filesystem overhead to all file sizes
just to avoid confusing newbies?
Second, du already does that. Go figure.
No, it doesn't. It rounds up
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Ivan Jager wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Fri, Jun 15 2007, 05:36:33PM]:
[...]
Should we also add filesystem overhead to all file sizes
just to avoid confusing newbies?
Second, du already does that.
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 03:22:10AM]:
Should we also add filesystem overhead to all file sizes
just to avoid confusing newbies?
Second, du already does that. Go figure.
No, it doesn't. It rounds up to a multiple of the block size. That only
This rounding is still
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 03:39:22PM]:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Ivan Jager wrote:
This sounds like another not a perfect solution fallacy. Accurately
presenting the full amount of disk space a file uses is an orthogonal
problem that having distinct
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 03:39:22PM]:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Ivan Jager wrote:
They are not strictly better. Did you not read the part where I said I
didn't want an extra column of is that serves no real
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 03:22:10AM]:
Should we also add filesystem overhead to all file sizes
just to avoid confusing newbies?
Second, du already does that. Go figure.
No, it doesn't. It rounds up to a multiple of the block
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a shell for people who don't remember what the output of their
commands mean:
#!/bin/bash
while echo -n '$ '; read cmd line; do
man $cmd | cat;
eval $cmd $line | sed 's/KB/KiB/;s/MB/MiB/;s/GB/GiB/;s/TB/TiB/';
done
I'm choosing this to
Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest that we prepare a wikipage on wiki.debian.org with a
friendly formulated bugreport template. After this template is
mature enough, we can start writing wishlist bugreports on packages
making wrong use SI prefixes (e.g. write KB but mean KiB)
Phillip Susi a écrit :
Christof Krüger wrote:
Unfortunately, computer designers, technicians etc. are not living in an
isolated world (well.. maybe some of them).
No one wants to forbid the computer people to use base 2 numbers. They
are just asked to write KiB instead of KB if they mean base
Le vendredi 15 juin 2007 à 13:46 -0400, Phillip Susi a écrit :
Different disciplines often ascribe different meanings to the same
words, so there is no reason why the prefix Kilo can not mean 1024 in
the context of computer science, so please stop complaining about that.
You cannot always
Le vendredi 15 juin 2007 à 17:36 -0400, Ivan Jager a écrit :
Yes. Any time the unit is bytes. There is even a standard for it.
I must have missed that one. Could you point us to this standard?
How about when you buy 80 GB of RAM, and your software says you have
88 GB?
How about buying 80 GiB
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:43:53 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 15 juin 2007 à 17:36 -0400, Ivan Jager a écrit :
Yes. Any time the unit is bytes. There is even a standard for it.
I must have missed that one. Could you point us to this standard?
I too would love to see that standard.
Phillip Susi wrote:
Christof Krüger wrote:
Unfortunately, computer designers, technicians etc. are not living in an
isolated world (well.. maybe some of them).
No one wants to forbid the computer people to use base 2 numbers. They
are just asked to write KiB instead of KB if they mean base 2
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
David Verhasselt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps transforming it into a localization problem would do the
trick. This way, users would be able to set their preference on
byte-count in the same place as their preference on currency,
decimal, and am/pm
Christof Krüger wrote:
Unfortunately, computer designers, technicians etc. are not living in an
isolated world (well.. maybe some of them).
No one wants to forbid the computer people to use base 2 numbers. They
are just asked to write KiB instead of KB if they mean base 2
quantities, because the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:46:10PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
Because we needed a name, and Kilo is a good one to use. There is no
rule that says you can't use the word for a different meaning in a
different context.
Which context would this be? Computer Science? Computer Engineering?
Joe Smith wrote:
Also just rembering the exact conversion factors for
Imperial units can be a problem especially with some of the more obscure
units.
Nope - google knows everything!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=emailrls=emailq=100+m%2Fs+in+fathoms+per+fortnight
2 parsecs in smoots returns
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:46:10PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
Because we needed a name, and Kilo is a good one to use. There is no
rule that says you can't use the word for a different meaning in a
different context.
Which context would this be?
#include hallo.h
* Ivan Jager [Fri, Jun 15 2007, 05:36:33PM]:
How about when you buy an 80 GB disk, and you know it's 80 * 10^9 bytes,
but your software says /home only has 79 GB and you know it means
79 * 10^9 bytes?
First, it would hardly say 79GB. Maybe 79.96GB which is much closer.
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, I prefer SI units over imperial ones, but there are no SI units
for information, so we're stuck using bits and bytes.
The issue isn't over the chosen unit. The issue is over the chosen
*abbreviations*. We use 'B' for byte, 'b' for bit; that's not at
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:45:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The meaning of 1 TB is approximate only for approximate people. I'd
expect more rigor from people working in computer science (if we can
call it a science).
... and since most Debian users are not computer scientists, Scott is
Le jeudi 14 juin 2007 à 12:15 +0200, Gabor Gombas a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:45:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The meaning of 1 TB is approximate only for approximate people. I'd
expect more rigor from people working in computer science (if we can
call it a science).
...
Perhaps transforming it into a localization problem would do the trick.
This way, users would be able to set their preference on byte-count in
the same place as their preference on currency, decimal, and am/pm vs
24h. Applications could make use of the localization settings to
calculate the
Perhaps transforming it into a localization problem would do the trick.
This way, users would be able to set their preference on byte-count in
the same place as their preference on currency, decimal, and am/pm vs
24h. Applications could make use of the localization settings to
calculate the
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alex Jones wrote:
1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more
and no less. If they want to actually put 1.024 TB on the disk
then they can say 1 TB (approx.) like any other
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 14:03:51 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:33:12PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Even in the US all legitimate science and engineering is done in SI
units.
Suurre... That's why in 1999 the NASA
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Since we *can* give a perfectly precise quantity of bytes and
other digital phenomena, and often do, this is even more reason to
use the precise meaning of the units for those quantities.
Ok, so this applies to
David Verhasselt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps transforming it into a localization problem would do the
trick. This way, users would be able to set their preference on
byte-count in the same place as their preference on currency,
decimal, and am/pm vs 24h. Applications could make use of
Ben Finney wrote:
David Verhasselt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps transforming it into a localization problem would do the
trick. This way, users would be able to set their preference on
byte-count in the same place as their preference on currency,
decimal, and am/pm vs 24h.
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 20:15 +0200, David Verhasselt wrote:
Yes, but the fact is that there are apparently a lot of different
opinions on what should be used. Therefore why not agree to disagree,
and let the user decide what they want to use. Make a centralized system
that converts an
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A GiB is the same in any locale, and has the same display -- GiB
-- in any locale. Displaying it another way is misleading.
I'm informed that this may not be the case. Consider the statement
modified to: A GiB is the same in any locale, and displaying it as
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 19:57, Joey Hess wrote:
I had generally assumed that most programmers were reaonsable and used
powers of 2, but this thread is certianly changing my mind about *that*.
It's not that unreasonable. Humans generally count in base 10 - computers
count in base 2.
--
Magnus
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:52 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
shirish writes (Using standardized SI prefixes):
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix .
Urgh, these things are ugly and an abomination. We should avoid them.
Ian.
I'd really like to hear some real
One more opinion:
If you consider a number more relevant than its nearest power of 2,
then somebody else will consider every digit of that number relevant.
In that case, don't use rounding by SI/IEC prefixes at all.
For an example see Bug #420716.
The first number, where the difference between
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 12:51 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:52 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
shirish writes (Using standardized SI prefixes):
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix .
Urgh, these things are ugly and an abomination. We should
On 13/06/07, Christof Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd really like to hear some real arguments against SI prefixes, besides
being ugly or funny to pronounce or just because it has always been
like that. Advantages of using SI prefixes has been mentioned in this
thread. Please tell me the
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:01 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more and no
less.
No it doesn't.
The meaning of 1 TB depends on the context, and has always done so.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallo,
On 6/13/07, Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The meaning of 1 TB depends on the context, and has always done so.
Wrongly.
--
-alex
http://www.ventonegro.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:29 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Without the binary unit to consider, when we quote a drive as 1TB, we
know that it has *at least* 1,000,000,000,000 bytes available.
Depending on the drive, it may have anywhere between this and
1,099,511,627,776 bytes available.
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 15:29, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 12:51 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:52 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...] Please tell me the disadvantages so there can actually be a
constructive discussion.
User Confusion.
Most
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 12:51 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:52 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
shirish writes (Using standardized SI prefixes):
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix .
Urgh, these things are ugly and an abomination. We should
I demand that Alex Jones may or may not have written...
And no-one uses floppy disks any more. Let's just bury them all and forget
about them. :D
I used one yesterday to do a BIOS upgrade. :-)
1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more and no
less.
It means 1024^4
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 15:19, Bjørn Ingmar Berg wrote:
Let me start with a dumb example:
(OK, dumb example duly deleted)
Computers deal with numbers in base two. Humans deal with numbers in
base 10. When computers and humans interact (on a technical level)
humans must adapt to the
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:25:13PM +, Evgeni Golov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:42:08 -0300 Paulo Marcondes wrote:
billion = 10^6 * 10^6 (IIRC, as used in Portugal - no jokes here!)
=10^12 :)
and Germany, France, former UdSSR, insert your
Let me start with a dumb example:
For a child or uninterested commoner that flying critter is simply a
birdie. For those in the know exactly the same entity is a Falco
peregrinus.
Even if simply calling it birdie or perhaps falcon would be
easier, more user friendly more understandable for
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:08 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:25:13PM +, Evgeni Golov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:42:08 -0300 Paulo Marcondes wrote:
billion = 10^6 * 10^6 (IIRC, as used in Portugal - no jokes here!)
Le mercredi 13 juin 2007 à 15:06 +0100, Scott James Remnant a écrit :
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:01 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more and no
less.
No it doesn't.
The meaning of 1 TB depends on the context, and has always done so.
Christof Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd really like to hear some real arguments against SI prefixes, besides
being ugly or funny to pronounce or just because it has always been
like that. Advantages of using SI prefixes has been mentioned in this
thread. Please tell me the disadvantages
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:29 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
[...]
And we still have many figures in both GB and GiB which are neither of
the two!
okay ... reading on ...
[...]
I see no problem with this 1TB quote being approximate. It's
rounded anyway.
So you don't care if it is
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:33:12PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Even in the US all legitimate science and engineering is done in SI
units.
Suurre... That's why in 1999 the NASA Mars orbiter didn't crash
because one (NASA) team worked in metric units and the other (private
contractor) in
Le mercredi 13 juin 2007 à 15:19 +0200, Bjørn Ingmar Berg a écrit :
When computers and humans interact (on a technical level)
humans must adapt to the computer, because computers can not.
Anyone starting with such assumptions should never design any kind of
user interface.
Dealing with chunks
As I see it there are two ways of resolving the difference between KiB
and KB.
* Use Rosetta to update the text and fix the output so that it now
reads KiB. This would be relatively simple to do, but not actually
helpful longer term.
* Fix the source code that calculates KB by
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alex Jones wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:29 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Without the binary unit to consider, when we quote a drive as 1TB, we
know that it has *at least* 1,000,000,000,000 bytes available.
Depending on the drive, it may have anywhere between this and
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 14:03:51 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:33:12PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Even in the US all legitimate science and engineering is done in SI
units.
Suurre... That's why in 1999 the NASA Mars orbiter didn't crash
because one (NASA)
Ivan Jager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alex Jones wrote:
1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more
and no less. If they want to actually put 1.024 TB on the disk
then they can say 1 TB (approx.) like any other industry
(detergent, bacon, etc.).
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christof Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd really like to hear some real arguments against SI prefixes,
besides being ugly or funny to pronounce or just because it has
always been like that. Advantages of using SI prefixes has been
mentioned in
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is not really understandable is why this stupid naming has been
kept in Windows XP.
Because nobody actually cares except control-freak types, and they're
certainly not who windows is targetting!
-Miles
--
`To alcohol! The cause of, and solution
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:08 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:25:13PM +, Evgeni Golov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:42:08 -0300 Paulo Marcondes wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:55:35PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 11 June 2007 21:41, Joey Hess wrote:
Alex Queiroz wrote:
On 6/11/07, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I hate that convention. K and k should only ever refer to 1024.
Like in kg or
On Monday 11 June 2007 21:21, Joey Hess wrote:
Bastian Venthur wrote:
What I don't believe is your 80 colums argument. Could
you please name a few of the *many* programs which would have to drop
information, precision, or significantly change their display to use the
KiB unit?
iftop,
On Monday 11 June 2007 23:10, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Abbreviations are ambiguous by design. Who actually says that KB means
kilobyte?
You're arguing that although IEC prefixes eliminate all ambiguity in the area
of amounts and rates of data, there is still some ambiguity left, i.e. IEC
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 02:56, Mark Reitblatt wrote:
On 6/11/07, Alex Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine. Stick with Kilobytes, but strictly define it as 10^3 bytes. Just
choose one over the other and be consistent.
That's not consistent. Kilobyte has always meant 2^10 bytes. kilo
in
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:36:39AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
That's an argument that's been heard before but it's *wrong*. SI prefixes
*are* used with non-SI units without losing their normal meaning and there is
no reason why bytes should be an exception. Since kilo has always meant
Hi Thijs!
You wrote:
We are talking about tools like aptitude here, or at least, the OP does.
Did you ever have 2 GB free and decided to install a package that would
exactly fill that space in?
Afaik, we are talking about making the use of the prefixes consistent
over all of Debian, so that
Hi all,
Somebody asked about real world experiences. Ever tried fitting
mixed multiple data to a CD or DVD have to see in byte-size if
things are good or not. Ever downloaded an .iso only to find later it
doesn't fit the CD/DVD by some MiB . How much overburning can be done
by a CD/DVD
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 08:44, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:36:39AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
That's an argument that's been heard before but it's *wrong*. SI prefixes
*are* used with non-SI units without losing their normal meaning and
there is no reason why
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No it doesn't.
The SI binary prefixes are an abomination.
Why - besides pronunciation?
Well among other things, the end result of this whole mess will likely
be to _increase_ confusion, rather than lessen it:
Until now, in a typical computer app,
On Monday 11 June 2007 21:21, Joey Hess wrote:
Bastian Venthur wrote:
I agree with the sounds stupid part, although I don't belive this is a
valid argument.
It's a perfectly valid argument for me to use to ignore a bad standard.
If the standard makes me talk funny, I will ignore it or make
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:54:25PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Until now, in a typical computer app, 900K had an unambiguous meaning:
900*1024.
No, its 900 Kelvin aka 626.85°C
Should I say that kb and Mb are kilo bases and mega bases, as in DNA?
Bastian
--
The sight of death frightens them
Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 19:56 -0500, Mark Reitblatt a écrit :
That's not consistent. Kilobyte has always meant 2^10 bytes.
No, it has never. Kilo has always meant 10^3. Full stop. End of story.
Bye bye. People didn't invent the SI just so that a small group of
hackers decide that suddenly it is
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:20:30AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 19:56 -0500, Mark Reitblatt a écrit :
That's not consistent. Kilobyte has always meant 2^10 bytes.
No, it has never. Kilo has always meant 10^3. Full stop. End of story.
Bye bye. People didn't invent
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 08:54, Miles Bader wrote:
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No it doesn't.
The SI binary prefixes are an abomination.
Why - besides pronunciation?
Well among other things, the end result of this whole mess will likely
be to _increase_ confusion, rather
Miles Bader wrote:
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No it doesn't.
The SI binary prefixes are an abomination.
Why - besides pronunciation?
Well among other things, the end result of this whole mess will likely
be to _increase_ confusion, rather than lessen it:
Until now, in a
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 03:29 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
It has never been anything but a gross imprecision introduced by people
incapable of following rigorous standards.
It has never been anything more than people defaulting to a close
approximation. Language is imperfect.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:36:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 03:29 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
It has never been anything but a gross imprecision introduced by people
incapable of following rigorous standards.
It has never been anything more than
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 03:43 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
What are you talking about? We all know that the *precise* meaning of
kilo is 1000. The point is that the term was also co-opted, since there
was not a better term. If you are talking about a contract, I would
expect that the
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 19:56 -0500, Mark Reitblatt wrote:
On 6/11/07, Alex Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine. Stick with Kilobytes, but strictly define it as 10^3 bytes. Just
choose one over the other and be consistent.
That's not consistent. Kilobyte has always meant 2^10 bytes. kilo
in
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:37 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
Another historic example is a floppy-MB:
A 1.44MB floppy disc can store 1,474,560 Bytes, that is 1440 KiB and
1.40625 MiB or approximately 1475KB or 1.48MB with kilo=10^3 and
mega=10^6.
However, these floppies were known as
On 12/06/07 15:37, Christof Krüger wrote:
Just because something has been done wrong for a long time doesn't make
it right. People who know the inconsistencies get used to them and do
not want to change it because it may be inconvenient for them or it
simply sounds stupid to them (what an
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant a écrit :
Changing the unit prefixes is just a geek precision gratification that
will confuse everybody who is used to talking about kilobytes, and
gigabytes...
The confusion lies in the current situation. Bringing precision doesn't
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:40:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Of course, I don't usually care that file sizes in my browser window are
displayed in kibibytes and mebibytes. Not until I select some of them,
see the total size, and ask myself whether they fit on a DVD.
If you want to figure
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
