Op dinsdag 19-06-2007 om 11:00 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
Except that many user apps use binary multiples for both bits and bytes
when they show download speed.
(But of course your usage of usually already tells us that there is no
clear definition.)
Op maandag 18-06-2007 om 11:20 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Network speed is usually measured in bits per second, which uses 1000.
Bytes always uses 1024. The context is keyed on bytes vs bits.
Except that many user apps use binary multiples for both bits and bytes
when they
Op zaterdag 16-06-2007 om 09:49 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Ben
Finney:
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 issue
in this thread.
Well, it seems like the CIE etc. use 'B' for 'byte' and 'bit'
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)
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
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 Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:05 +1000, James Doc Livingston wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 00:35 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
I agree that this is the way to go. However, I think the OP wanted to
suggest to have something like an official policy so that
changes/patches are also created by ubuntu
-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 computer, because computers can not.
Computers CAN but humans do not want!! (because this will spoil the broth!)
-One does not
Hi all,
One of the ways to drive usage as somebody mentioned is to
drive upstream that is a good way. Make sure most of free libraries
incorporate KiB [0] the mathematical stuff needed (No computer
engineer here, just a user who cares) so things turn out right while
making sure that 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 amount
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.
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 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 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 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]
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 14:29 +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
After wasting too much time reading this thread, I think the bike shed
should be yellow this time.
And for something at least slightly useful:
This is not something Ubuntu should do, upstreams should do this. So if
anyone really cares about this, poke our upstreams instead of rambling
on about
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, 2007-06-13 at 15:01 +0100, 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
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 00:35 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
I agree that this is the way to go. However, I think the OP wanted to
suggest to have something like an official policy so that
changes/patches are also created by ubuntu and eventually proposed
upstream.
But I guess there will be no
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.).
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:03 +1000, James Doc Livingston 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.).
How many other
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 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
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 Tue, 2007-06-12 at 13:01 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
Let me give you an example from the real world:
There was a bridge to build over the river Rhine connecting Switzerland
and Germany. You have to know that sea levels are defined differently in
both countries so if you plan to build a
Scott James Remnant a écrit :
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 13:01 +0200, Christof Krüger wrote:
Let me give you an example from the real world:
There was a bridge to build over the river Rhine connecting Switzerland
and Germany. You have to know that sea levels are defined differently in
both
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
The difference is a sufficiently small percentage, that most users will
not care.
No, like I said in my earlier post, the error grows quickly. As 1.024^x,
in fact.
x = 1 kibi vs. kilo 2.4%
x = 2 mebi vs. mega
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.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:50 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
The difference is a sufficiently small percentage, that most users will
not care.
No, like I said in my earlier post, the error grows quickly. As 1.024^x,
in fact.
x = 1
Actually bandwidth is mesured in bits per second and no bytes per second
On 6/12/07, Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bandwidth should be quoted in true SI units over a metric of time,
e.g. kilobytes-per-second (e.g. the average UK DSL upload speed is
250kbps ==
Christof Krüger wrote:
Let me give you an example from the real world:
There was a bridge to build over the river Rhine connecting Switzerland
and Germany. You have to know that sea levels are defined differently in
both countries so if you plan to build a bridge you have to take it into
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:54 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
I fail to see the relationship between different reference points
and screwing the calculation. In this case there was no ambiguity,
engineers knew exactly what to do, but screwed up. Its like saying someone
screwed up converting from
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a strong advocation for using powers of ten everywhere, and
abolishing the use of powers of two multiples altogether, no?
Nothing needs to be abolished but inconsistency. The same good would
be had by *knowing the difference*, and
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:50 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Especially nowadays with terabyte disks coming out and hitting the
consumer market, there is *no place* for 10% of ambiguity.
Op dinsdag 12-06-2007 om 15:52 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Ian
Jackson:
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.
They aren't more ugly than
Hi all,
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix . I
put a bug up for it https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/119822
Aaron helpfully said it needs more discussion. I have had great
support from libtorrent code.rasterbar.com as well as the guys at
deluge
Ugh,
The second example I wanted to give was of libburnia
http://libburnia-project.org/changeset/877 . Sorry
--
Shirish Agarwal
This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
--
shirish wrote:
Hi all,
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix . I
put a bug up for it https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/119822
Aaron helpfully said it needs more discussion. I have had great
support from libtorrent code.rasterbar.com as well as the guys at
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 kilobyte is not an SI prefix. SI prefixes only apply to SI
43 matches
Mail list logo
