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
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
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
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.)
Most use 1000 for bits, and 1024 for bytes. Those that do not are
cons
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
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' (
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 s
Jan Claeys wrote:
> The problem is that it's used for both decimal & binary multiples in the
> same context... (E.g. several programs use it as a binary multiple for
> "network speeds", while many other programs use it as a decimal multiple
> in that _exact_ same context.)
Network speed is usuall
On 11.06.2007 14:57 schrieb shirish:
> 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 a
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
Op vrijdag 15-06-2007 om 13:46 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
> 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.
The problem is that it's used for both decimal & binary mult
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, beca
Op woensdag 13-06-2007 om 20:17 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Christof
Krüger:
> 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 rest of the world already uses kilo as 1000.
The SI sym
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 2
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
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
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
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 22:29 +0200, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> 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 whether the difference between the different gigglebytes or
> tibblebytes is si
-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 redefin
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 b
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 ma
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 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
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 a
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 22:29 +0200, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> After wasting too much time reading this thread, I think the bike shed
> should be yellow this time.
I'd like to have it red, please.
> And for something at least slightly useful:
> This is not something Ubuntu should do, upstreams sho
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
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 whe
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:06 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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
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
> 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
> I received 107% of the gas I thought I paid for. I am a delighted
> customer.
Conversely: "The file I downloaded took 7% longer to download than I
thought it would. I am less than delighted."
--
Alex Jones
http://alex.weej.com/
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 08:46 -0600, Kevin Fries wrote:
> As larger and larger sizes are used, what was once an minor difference,
> is starting to become significant. It almost reminds me of that old
> scam of taking the rounded portions of a penny in financial calculations
> and putting into an ac
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:29 +0100, 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:
> > > shirish writes ("Using standardized SI prefixes"):
> > > > Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B
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 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 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.
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
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 rea
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 tha
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
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 differ
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
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 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 == 250,0
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.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubs
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
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
>> b
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
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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
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 "1.4
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 a
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
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
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
Fine. Stick with Kilobytes, but strictly define it as 10^3 bytes. Just
choose one over the other and be consistent.
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 01:53 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> shirish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It isn't just ubuntu or debian but this needs to be done
> > everywhere.
>
> No i
shirish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It isn't just ubuntu or debian but this needs to be done
> everywhere.
No it doesn't.
The "SI binary prefixes" are an abomination.
"Kibibytes"? Christ... [Did they try pronouncing these horrid things
when "standarizing" them?!?]
-Miles
--
We are all
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
