Sorry, I will slow down my reading and stop flipping 2^10 into 10^3.
From: Rodney W. Grimes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 9:53 PM
[in regards to a previous post preferring base-10 for K and M units...]
I'm sorry but I would find it non-obvious and more
On 2000-Jan-13 16:45:45 +1100, "Rodney W. Grimes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the boot time reporting is in 2^20 MB:
ad0: 3079MB (6306048 sectors), 6256 cyls, 16 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S
Due the math if you doubt me, oh, and Quantum calls this a 3.2G disk
drive :-)
6256*16*63*512 =
At 7:57 PM -0500 2000/1/11, Mike Fisher wrote:
Why not use Knuth's (good) suggestion for differentiating these prefixes?
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/news99.html
Blech. The prefixes should be aware of the nature of the term to
which they are being applied. For
kB and kiB are the proper abreviations, not KB and KiB. I don't know
if miB or MiB is correct, likely MiB.
I always thought it was "k/m/b = 1,000/1,000,000/1,000,000,000"
and "K/M/G = 2^10/2^20/2^30". Or was this just some convention I
learned somewhere that I mistakenly thought
In message v04220801b4a20f42cd3a@[195.238.1.121] Brad Knowles writes:
: I always thought it was "k/m/b = 1,000/1,000,000/1,000,000,000"
: and "K/M/G = 2^10/2^20/2^30". Or was this just some convention I
: learned somewhere that I mistakenly thought of as an actual accepted
: rule?
This
Folks, this is getting a little silly. Can't we cut all the esoteric
mumbo-jumbo and agree to do it the same way that gnuls and our own
existing df do it?
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Personally, I'd much prefer to simply use separator characters
like this:
-rw--- 1 olli olli 211,602,776 Nov 28 23:09 S1E1.mpg
This makes it very easy to recognize the size, and you still
have the exact number of bytes, not rounded. It's even
possible to to respect the locale setting
At 6:01 PM -0800 1/11/00, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
Garance wrote:
personally, I'd just as soon use K, M, and G and have it mean
the base-10 values. If I'm looking at a decimal number for one
file (because it's small enough), I don't want a base-2 version
of the similar number for some
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:21:05 -0500, Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In 'ls' we are not talking about a block count, we are talking about
a byte-count.
ls -s
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
At 4:51 PM -0500 1/12/00, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In 'ls' we are not talking about a block count, we are talking about
a byte-count.
ls -s
Hmm, valid point. 'ls -l' is not using a block count though, and so
all of my previous
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 04:21:05PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
The first one changes because it's over 1 megabyte, but the second
one does not change. So you get:
-rw-r--r-- 1 gad staff 1951k Dec 11 03:39 asciiedit.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 gad staff999123 Dec 11 03:39 asciisrch.c
On 2000-Jan-13 09:54:17 +1100, Joerg Micheel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-rw-r--r-- 1 gad staff 1951k Dec 11 03:39 asciiedit.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 gad staff999123 Dec 11 03:39 asciisrch.c
You still need to mentally re-align the numbers before you can compare
the sizes.
-rw-r--r-- 1 gad
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:45:51 -0500, Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes, it may be "more pure" to use 1024 when comparing 'ls' listings
to block counts, but it is less confusing WITHIN a single 'ls -l'
listing if all the numbers are decimal, and not some combination of
base-10 and
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
I'm sorry but I would find it non-obvious and more confusing. When ls or a
similar disk/memory utility tells me xxxK or xxxM, I would expect it to be
in 2^10 or 2^20 units. To appear otherwise would surprise me.
I guess you get
I'm currently dealing with an increasing set of *very* large files,
most of them in the order of gigabytes. It becomes impossible to
figure the size of a file with ls -l with 9 or more digits displayed.
I would propose a new flag to ls which will together with option -l
change the unit to
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:04:56AM +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote:
[ls whith sizes in k,M]
Would such a patch find the blessing of the team and the maintainer
of ls ?
You could try gnuls -h
-fn-
--
~/.signature not found: wellknown error 42
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:23:54PM +0100, Frank Nobis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:04:56AM +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote:
[ls whith sizes in k,M]
Would such a patch find the blessing of the team and the maintainer
of ls ?
You could try gnuls -h
As much as I tried - this is not
Joerg Micheel wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:23:54PM +0100, Frank Nobis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:04:56AM +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote:
[ls whith sizes in k,M]
Would such a patch find the blessing of the team and the maintainer
of ls ?
You could try gnuls -h
As
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:35:28AM +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:23:54PM +0100, Frank Nobis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:04:56AM +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote:
[ls whith sizes in k,M]
Would such a patch find the blessing of the team and the maintainer
of
[Charset windows-1252 unsupported, skipping...]
Arghh... windblows...
I'm currently dealing with an increasing set of *very* large files,
most of them in the order of gigabytes. It becomes impossible to
figure the size of a file with ls -l with 9 or more digits displayed.
I would
At 2:49 PM -0800 1/11/00, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
Another thing that ``works for me''. Only make it ki, mi, and gi
to fit with the new binary mode international appreviation standards,
unless of cource you use base 10 divisors.
Why not KB, MB or GB, since that's what you're actually
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
[trimmed list of recipients to just -current]
personally, I'd just as soon use K, M, and G and have it mean
the base-10 values. If I'm looking at a decimal number for one
file (because it's small enough), I don't want a base-2 version
of the similar number for some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
Because KB MB and GB mean different things than KiB MiB and GiB.
K = 10^3, Ki = 2^10
M = 10^6 Mi = 2^20
G = 10^9 Gi = 2^30
Why not use Knuth's (good) suggestion for differentiating these
At 2:49 PM -0800 1/11/00, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
Another thing that ``works for me''. Only make it ki, mi, and gi
to fit with the new binary mode international appreviation standards,
unless of cource you use base 10 divisors.
Why not KB, MB or GB, since that's what you're
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 06:01:53PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
(ie, whatever letters you use, please just divide the values
by 1000 instead of 1024).
Please don't, there is already far to much precedence in both the
computing world and other commands (df -k and du -k come to mind
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Donn Miller wrote:
Or else we could put both in. There could be either a command-line
option or env variable set that selects between decimal (true metric)
or powers of two (computer metric, or whatever).
What about making ls sensitive to $BLOCKSIZE, but only if enabled
26 matches
Mail list logo
