Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
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 arbitrary byte-count to the user's preferred way of viewing it. That's where I got the locale analogy from. I know, it's probably overkill to create a whole new API for just this, but perhaps there is an API where you could add a simple function that does this to. Maybe in GTK? Either way, a centralized system would help stop errorenous usage of GiB, GB or Gb. Don't we already do this for °C and °F? -- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/
Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
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. It's actually more likely to have something strange like 1,024,000,000,000 available. 10% error is no good for me. You can continue to play the at least card, but what about when it's more important if it is at most something? And seeing as this error only goes up exponentially, at which prefix do you draw the line and say no more? And no-one uses floppy disks any more. Let's just bury them all and forget about them. :D I see no problem with this 1TB quote being approximate. It's rounded anyway. If you really want to know how many bytes are available, you can use this great unit called the byte which is accurate and not subject to change[0]. 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.). -- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/
Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
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 4.9% x = 3 gibi vs. giga 7.4% x = 4 tebi vs. tera 10% Especially nowadays with terabyte disks coming out and hitting the consumer market, there is *no place* for 10% of ambiguity. This was precisely my point earlier. Back in the day, nobody cared for 2.4% error because all they ever measured anything in was kilo-somethings. -- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
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 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 lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. -Oscar Wilde -- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
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 kilobyte is not an SI prefix. SI prefixes only apply to SI measurements, of which byte is not a member. 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? It is simply a convenient accident that 2^10 ~= 10^3. As I'm sure you're well aware, this approximation starts to become way off as you approach tera-. In fact, that's about 10% error, which is simply unacceptable. It's time to move on and accept that the approximation fails with big numbers. There is no confusion; the only place where a kilobyte != 2^10 bytes is in hard drive manufacturer's advertising materials. This is the way it has been for decades, and it is a perfectly acceptable and desirable standard. And I suppose you think that differences such as that between the American and the English ton are acceptable and desirable. Let it be known that I strongly disagree with you here. :) -- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
