Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
Am Mittwoch, den 19.12.2007, 08:52 +0100 schrieb Sven Neumann: Hi, On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:14 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. No, because then you'll have applications using either, and then someone will want to make them consistent and we'll get an option in the control center an an XSETTING, which is yet another thing we'll have to port over when moving from GConf to DConf, and it's just a big fat mess. The issue seems to be a constant source of conflict, so why shouldn't we add another preference? The dispute under http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550100 proofs it. An environment variable would be enough, and if it was outside the GLib name space it could even be used by console applications (like ls). Yes, because this is a choice that the application developer needs to make, not the user. So this is never going to become am option in the control center or an XSETTING. We just need to make sure that the API docs give the application developer the information they need to make the right choice. I'm not sure why application developers may want to enforce this decision. Maybe you could give an example where it is important? I tend to call it a cultural decision, i.e. something like a time format or measurement units. Maybe it should be put into a LC_* environment variable (cf. man locale)? That would at least make sense if it directly depends on the country or origin of the user, rather than being “just” a matter of taste. best regards, Christian Neumair -- Christian Neumair [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 23:01 +0100 schrieb Sven Neumann: Hi, On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:45 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 14:50 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Should this be called generically g_format_size_for_display()? You could use it for more than file sizes (free RAM in gnome-system-monitor, etc.). It's here btw http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/glib/trunk/glib/gfileutils.c?revision=6076view=markup char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. We should also decide then whether the displayed size should use MB or MiB, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte and http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm I am all for SI units, even it writing MiB could cause some users to believe, we are too stupid to spell. Seemingly random switching between 1000 and 1024 whouldn't really help - I guess: Imagine some user wants to copy a 64 MiB file from some 1024 to some 1000 scale media: WTF doesn't this 64 MB file (64 * 2^10 bytes) fit on this 64 MB stick (64 * 10^6 bytes)? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://taschenorakel.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
The practical use of such a function is to give the user a general idea of the size. Hence a 2.4% (k), 4.9% (m), or 7.4% (g) difference will not change the picture. However, something people need the full story. Therefore, the friendly application using such a function should probably consider having a tooltip telling the full story. That would be a good time to show things like read-only too. Morten ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
g_format_file_size_for_display()
Should this be called generically g_format_size_for_display()? You could use it for more than file sizes (free RAM in gnome-system-monitor, etc.). Federico ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 14:50 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Should this be called generically g_format_size_for_display()? You could use it for more than file sizes (free RAM in gnome-system-monitor, etc.). It's here btw http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/glib/trunk/glib/gfileutils.c?revision=6076view=markup char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. The reason is that we want to generate nice display names in the volume monitor; for ordinary media you want 1000 (to match the label on the media); for optical discs you normally want 1024. gnome-vfs has this terrible bug where it uses 1024 so you get the label 61.2 MB media even when the media itself says 64MB. This is kinda like punching the user right in the face. It's not a mistake we should make for the new shiny gvfs stuff. David ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
Computer Makers Sued Over Hard Drive Size http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/2245200 ;) On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:45 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 14:50 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Should this be called generically g_format_size_for_display()? You could use it for more than file sizes (free RAM in gnome-system-monitor, etc.). It's here btw http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/glib/trunk/glib/gfileutils.c?revision=6076view=markup char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. The reason is that we want to generate nice display names in the volume monitor; for ordinary media you want 1000 (to match the label on the media); for optical discs you normally want 1024. gnome-vfs has this terrible bug where it uses 1024 so you get the label 61.2 MB media even when the media itself says 64MB. This is kinda like punching the user right in the face. It's not a mistake we should make for the new shiny gvfs stuff. David ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
Hi, On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:45 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 14:50 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Should this be called generically g_format_size_for_display()? You could use it for more than file sizes (free RAM in gnome-system-monitor, etc.). It's here btw http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/glib/trunk/glib/gfileutils.c?revision=6076view=markup char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. We should also decide then whether the displayed size should use MB or MiB, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte and http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm Sven ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:01 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: We should also decide then whether the displayed size should use MB or MiB, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte and http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm I think MiB would just go into the geekspeak_US translations, no? :-) David ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:01:22 +0100 Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should also decide then whether the displayed size should use MB or MiB, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte and http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm I for one would like to vote in favour of the kiB/MiB/etc.. scheme for powers-of-2, reserving kB/MB/etc.. strictly for powers-of-10. Trying to cuddle users by protecting them from the confusing MiB unit will only lead to even more confusion about 1000 vs 1024. Better to be consistent eveywhere, even if it means sometimes people have to learn what ki means. -- Paul LeoNerd Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:13:56 + Paul LeoNerd Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I for one would like to vote in favour of the kiB/MiB/etc.. scheme for Oops. Apparently it's KiB (capital 'K') to mean 2^10. How's that for consistency? :) -- Paul LeoNerd Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 23:01 +0100 schrieb Sven Neumann: Hi, On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:45 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 14:50 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Should this be called generically g_format_size_for_display()? You could use it for more than file sizes (free RAM in gnome-system-monitor, etc.). It's here btw http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/glib/trunk/glib/gfileutils.c?revision=6076view=markup char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. We should also decide then whether the displayed size should use MB or MiB, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte and http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm I am all for SI units, even it writing MiB could cause some users to believe, we are too stupid to spell. Seemingly random switching between 1000 and 1024 whouldn't really help - I guess: Imagine some user wants to copy a 64 MiB file from some 1024 to some 1000 scale media: WTF doesn't this 64 MB file (64 * 2^10 bytes) fit on this 64 MB stick (64 * 10^6 bytes)? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:14:31PM -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Big deal :) When you see 61.2 MB you think, oh, file system overhead! ripples in the time-space continuum. Nobody cares about that. Back to my original question: should this function be called g_format_size_for_display()? It's not for files only. I have no idea whether to use SI or computer units, but the fact that there's debate suggests holding off til there's more experience. Once a few cut-n-pasted versions exist, then you can decide if they are all the same... - dave ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:45 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. No, because then you'll have applications using either, and then someone will want to make them consistent and we'll get an option in the control center an an XSETTING, which is yet another thing we'll have to port over when moving from GConf to DConf, and it's just a big fat mess. The reason is that we want to generate nice display names in the volume monitor; for ordinary media you want 1000 (to match the label on the media); for optical discs you normally want 1024. gnome-vfs has this terrible bug where it uses 1024 so you get the label 61.2 MB media even when the media itself says 64MB. This is kinda like punching the user right in the face. It's not a mistake we should make for the new shiny gvfs stuff. Big deal :) When you see 61.2 MB you think, oh, file system overhead! ripples in the time-space continuum. Nobody cares about that. Back to my original question: should this function be called g_format_size_for_display()? It's not for files only. [Who's the nitpicker: the one who asks for file sizes versus general sizes or the one who asks about SI units vs. computer units...] Federico ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 15:31 -0800, Dave Benson wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:14:31PM -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: Big deal :) When you see 61.2 MB you think, oh, file system overhead! ripples in the time-space continuum. Nobody cares about that. Back to my original question: should this function be called g_format_size_for_display()? It's not for files only. I have no idea whether to use SI or computer units, but the fact that there's debate suggests holding off til there's more experience. Actually, I see it as an argument for centralizing the call and abstracting the decision away from apps. Then whenever its tweaked you fix it in one spot and it instantly propagates everywhere. Once a few cut-n-pasted versions exist, then you can decide if they are all the same... They are already a few like gnome-system-monitor, gnome-main-menu, presumably nautilus. -JP -- JP Rosevear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell, Inc. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
David Zeuthen wrote: Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. The reason is that we want to generate nice display names in the volume monitor; for ordinary media you want 1000 (to match the label on the media); for optical discs you normally want 1024. gnome-vfs has this terrible bug where it uses 1024 so you get the label 61.2 MB media even when the media itself says 64MB. This is kinda like punching the user right in the face. It's not a mistake we should make for the new shiny gvfs stuff. Mistake? That's correct behavior. It's not our fault the storage companies lie and use base-10 kB/MB/GB when everyone else uses base-2, and in fact they've been successfully sued in the US for doing this. Reporting the *actual* size of the media in base-2 units is the right way to go everywhere. Whether to use traditional kB/MB/GB or the (IMO somewhat ridiculous) SI KiB(which breaks the normal lowercase k = kilo convention for no reason)/MiB/GiB is another discussion. (I'd vote no in that discussion, at any rate.) -brian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
We can make it _(kB), and then people can use LANG=en_US.crazy-si-units if they really want that. Sounds like a case for LC_MEASUREMENT, acutally. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: g_format_file_size_for_display()
Hi, On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:14 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: char *g_format_file_size_for_display (goffset size); Ideally this one needs to take another parameter indicating whether you want 1kb = 1000 bytes or 1kb = 1024 bytes. No, because then you'll have applications using either, and then someone will want to make them consistent and we'll get an option in the control center an an XSETTING, which is yet another thing we'll have to port over when moving from GConf to DConf, and it's just a big fat mess. Yes, because this is a choice that the application developer needs to make, not the user. So this is never going to become am option in the control center or an XSETTING. We just need to make sure that the API docs give the application developer the information they need to make the right choice. Back to my original question: should this function be called g_format_size_for_display()? It's not for files only. Yes, we all seem to agree that this function is useful for other things than file sizes. But we should try to get it right. Otherwise it is simply not going to be used and we force application developers to invent their own function. Sven ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
