Neal McBurnett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:59:10AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > >> Neal McBurnett wrote: >> >>> I agree. More details and discussion are at this ifconfig bug report, >>> which came to the same conclusion: >>> >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/net-tools/+bug/240073 >>> >>> >> The interface speed in base10 yes. The number of bytes transferred, NO, >> because that is and has always been base2. You are barking up the wrong >> tree with regard to ifconfig's report on RX and TX bytes. Your beloved >> bit_rate page is only for interface speed. So a 100mbit/s interface can >> be reported as 12.5MB/s interface (100,000,000bits/8 = 12,500,000bytes) >> which is still base10 but the amount of bytes transferred has to be >> base2 because that is how blinking file sizes are calculated. The size >> of a file has always been base2 and so this nonsense of reporting disk >> space in base10 will only lead to discrepancies between the amount of >> space available and how many files you are dump on it. >> >> That stupid IEC standard is at complete odds with the way computers >> operate. I don't want to have to miscalculate just because tools started >> following stupidity and gave me numbers that were rounded up or down. >> Take this MB/Mib nonsense and stuff it. As a system administrator, I am >> having NONE of it. >> > > Have you read the actual references we've been providing? Would you > mind providing some of your own if you disagree? This is not just the > IEC promoting consistent use of the metric system - it is most of the > relevant standards bodies. The world doesn't care that some system > admins got used to a bad idea when it was in vogue for a short while > in the overall history of the metric system. Users buy disks that > list decimal multiples on the box, and are pissed when the system > reports it as a smaller number. There are more users who want the > world to agree on what the prefix "M" means, than sysadmins who want > to redefine the metric system. > Too bad it took over a decade (two?) before someone tried to sort out that misuse of the metric system. And they still have got nowhere after a decade too. Looks like the computing world don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Typical eh?
> E.g. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#Software > > The binary convention is supported by standardization bodies and > technical organizations such as IEEE, CIPM, NIST, and > SAE.[4][2][5][58] The new binary prefixes have also been adopted by > the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) > as the harmonization document HD 60027-2:2003-03.[59] This document > will be adopted as a European standard.[60] > Yawn. Please go rap something like the UNIX definition. > As described elsewhere on that page, with pictures of labels and > reference, files have been described with both properly labeled > decimal multiples, and with mislabled binary multiples over time. The > insanity must stop, and imagining that people will prefer a system > where you transmit at 1 MB/s for one second and end up with . > > Saying that having 8 bits in a byte affects these arguments makes no > sense to me. I bet most users and consumers don't even know how many > bits are in a byte, and would see no reason to change what the > prefixes mean based on it. > > Likewise, just pointing out these bodies makes no sense to me. Get this into the POSIX standard and then I'd be happy as a fish in water. Except for the part where I have to talk like a frog. Gribbit. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
