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 ev
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.
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 disagr
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 wi
ssage-
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
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 bitstre
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 sol
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 t
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 's/KB/KiB/;s/MB/MiB/;s/GB/GiB/;s/
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 08:28:33 Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I am sitting on my line but does this mean we sould use
>
> 2B
> k2B => kilo Byte with power of 2
> M2B => Mega Byte with power of 2
> G2B => Giga Byte with power of 2
> T2B => Tera Byte with power of 2
No, w
#include
* 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 w
Hi Wes,
I am sitting on my line but does this mean we sould use
2B
k2B => kilo Byte with power of 2
M2B => Mega Byte with power of 2
G2B => Giga Byte with power of 2
T2B => Tera Byte with power of 2
?
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Sys
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 G
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Ivan Jager [Tue, Jun 19 2007, 03:22:10AM]:
>
>>> 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 they w
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 "u
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 choosin
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* 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.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* 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 "i"s that serves no real purpose?
#include
* 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 distinc
#include
* 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
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Ivan Jager wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* 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 fig
Ivan Jager wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> #include
>> * 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.
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 i
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* 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
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 c
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 st
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
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
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
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 G
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 alwa
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 m
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
#include
* 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.
> Should w
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?
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=email&rls=email&q=100+m%2Fs+in+fathoms+per+fortnight
"2 parsecs in smoots" r
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?
Compu
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, 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
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
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 arb
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. Applicatio
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 us
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 ap
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 Mar
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 i
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
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 amo
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).
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 i
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 Marco
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
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 th
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
>
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
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 (NA
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
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
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 chun
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 i
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
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 disadv
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
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 - n
> 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 "un
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 UdSS
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 com
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 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,
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.
>
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.
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 PRO
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]
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 d
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,
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 b
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.
&
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.
--
Magnu
On Monday 11 June 2007 22:57:00 John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> It does solve a real problem. It solves an ambiguity. Does k mean 1000
> or 1024? Does M mean 100 or 1048576?
>
> Answer: k mean 1 000
> ki means 1 024
> m means 1 000 000
> mi means 1 048 576
>
> No more ambiguit
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 01:48:27 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Why do you think that the marketing materials for most hard drives
> > include the note that 1 GB = 1 000 000 000 bytes?
>
> Maybe because they are sold in the US, one of the 3 countries where SI
> units are not standard?
Even in the US
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 ambi
#include
* Roberto C. Sánchez [Tue, Jun 12 2007, 03:43:29AM]:
> Why do you think that the marketing materials for most hard drives
> include the note that 1 GB = 1 000 000 000 bytes? If the SI prefixes
> only ever held their *precise* meanings, then such clarifications would
> not be necessary.
#include
* Bernhard R. Link [Tue, Jun 12 2007, 12:18:22AM]:
> > Excuse me? Pretty simple example: you have only 2.03 GB (real GB)
> > remaining free space (seen in some disk info tool) on your harddisk and
> > you are fetching a 2GB file (2 fake GB, 2GiB in fact). So what, it
> > breaks about 99%
On 6/12/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:25:22PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Prefixes are case-sensitive. Kilo is "k". (This is also why there is
> much less ambiguity with K used for kibibytes.)
Hmm, I used to think both k and K were accepted for k
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,
Anywhere where milliard i
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,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2007/6/12, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sure, this is why googling for "for" returns 7 billion entries.
billion = 10^9 or
billion = 10^6 * 10^6 (IIRC, as used in Portugal - no jokes here!)
further argument to use powers, not words to define multiples.
P.S.: I googled 'for' ~7*10^9 r
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:19:45AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:32:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:15:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 15:25 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > > > > You seem to fancy the K
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The question is not whether to use powers of 2 or 10 (different software
> use both), but rather to use the good prefixes depending on that
> choice.
It sounds like you've surveyed a lot of software in Debian and found
some that uses 2 and some 10 for data storage measur
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:25:22PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Prefixes are case-sensitive. Kilo is "k". (This is also why there is
> much less ambiguity with K used for kibibytes.)
Hmm, I used to think both k and K were accepted for kilo, but I can't
find anything that says K is accepted for
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 12:19 -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
> Nope. kelvin is a unit, not a prefix. K as a prefix means kilo, so KB
> is kilo bell.
Prefixes are case-sensitive. Kilo is "k". (This is also why there is
much less ambiguity with K used for kibibytes.)
--
.''`.
: :' : We
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:20:42AM +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
> Then why bastardise an SI prefix? This surely serves only to confuse
> people. Why don't we invent a new word? Should we call it the
> "thousandbyte"?
Because computer people have always bastardised everything. Booting,
window, mouse,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:49:18PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> Well, in SI units, KB never means kilobyte, and is not ambiguous at all;
> it's a kelvin??bel.
Nope. kelvin is a unit, not a prefix. K as a prefix means kilo, so KB
is kilo bell. You better have small values or you are deal
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 16:52, 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.
Purely emotional argumen
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 16:50 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote:
> 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
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 == 250,000bp
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.
>
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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe&
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
On 6/12/07, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Except, I did not claim that one of the versions is superior. What I stated
was:
1. English is a language where the correct usage is what most people use,
2. "kilobyte" is preferred over "kibibyte" by a vast majority of those whose
communi
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
