Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:04:05 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com> To: Michael Wardle <michael.wardle@adacel.com> Cc: Wouter Van Hemel <wouter@pair.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inconsistent use of data units Message-ID: <3C7463A5.5060204@pittgoth.com> References: <3C743707.3080505@adacel.com> <20020221003116.GA11893@hades.hell.gr> <3C744D39.1020308@adacel.com> <1014256250.304.66.camel@cocaine> <3C745639.8080509@adacel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Wardle wrote: This is confusing me... Let me throw my "vision" in here... 1000 is very easy for a human to work with, mainly newbies, but I like the 1024. The reason I think that is because 1024 is more "realistic" because there are 1024 numbers from 0 to 1023, and 1023 seems to be 10 bits in binary: 11 1111 1111, which is a very convient binary value. So, whilist 1000 may be a very easy decimal value for a human to work with (1111101000) I don't feel that it looks "nice" for a binary machine. Yes, a bit of thought went into this, and I understand that standards are standards, but I am trying to put understand this from, what I feel, is a "logical" view point... Although my view alone --Tom Rhodes A tad bit of topic, but whatever To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C7463A5.5060204>