Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:04:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew McKay <andy@openirc.co.uk> To: doc@freebsd.org Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Subject: Re: inconsistent use of data units Message-ID: <20020222092132.K79251-100000@fluoxetine.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020221022225.GA12900@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
GK> Well, I want my bikeshed green. And I'd prefer it all (consistently)
GK> written as shown below:
GK>
GK> Short form Long form
GK> ==================================
GK> 1 MB 1 Megabyte
GK> 1 KB 1 Kilobyte
GK> 1 Mbit 1 Mebagit
GK> 1 Kbit 1 Kilobit
GK>
GK> This way, there is no confusion as to whether Mb refers to bytes or bits.
GK> Bytes are always capitalized, and denoted by appending 'B', and bits are
GK> explicitly mentioned as 'bits' without capitalization. This last Mbit/Kbit
GK> notation seems rather clear, and it seems to be some sort of a de facto
GK> standard among people working on routers and telecomm guys.
This works for me. 'B' for byte and 'b' for bit is a loose standard but
the fact that it's implemented inconsistently can lead to confusion
(although context is usually enough for most people to work out what it
means). 'B' for byte and 'bit' for bit makes it 100% clear, 100% of the
time. I also agree with Michael. If these are implemented as entities
then a) it's easier to be consistent, and b) it's easier to change them if
the IEEE ever insists we stop using SI prefixes to refer to similar sane
quantities.
To get back to the original thread we can ACTUALLY define the 'K' prefix
to mean anything we like, seeing as SI does not use K as a prefix. No
doubt the SI advocates would like to suggest that KB refers to a 'Kelvin
Byte'. If we defined this as the temperature rise produced by one byte of
storage per clock cycle then it would be of much interest to overclockers
who would have a standard way of knowing how much heat various storage
mechanisms generate in their system. This would lead to an ad war amongst
manufacturers all claiming to have the 'lowest KB rating per Mebibyte of
memory'. Once this system was established the potential for confusion
would be eliminated. For the twenty years in between, where no one had a
clue what anything meant ('Quantispeed technology', anyone?), we'd all
just ignore everything that seemed inconsistent with what we knew. :)
So...would anyone like me to contact the SI committee and offer this as a
unit for them to ratify? I think a pay-per-use royalty for the newly
coined 'Kelvin Byte' could generate a lot of money for FreeBSD :P
Yours, with tongue firmly in cheek,
Andy
--
Andrew McKay <andy@openirc.co.uk>
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?20020222092132.K79251-100000>