Date: 21 Feb 2002 06:47:29 +0100 From: Wouter Van Hemel <wouter@pair.com> To: Michael Wardle <michael.wardle@adacel.com> Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, parv <parv_@yahoo.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inconsistent use of data units Message-ID: <1014270449.303.117.camel@cocaine> In-Reply-To: <3C74803F.4090004@adacel.com> References: <3C743707.3080505@adacel.com> <20020221003116.GA11893@hades.hell.gr> <3C744D39.1020308@adacel.com> <1014256250.304.66.camel@cocaine> <3C745639.8080509@adacel.com> <20020221022225.GA12900@hades.hell.gr> <3C745D8B.9090808@adacel.com> <20020221025358.GB2678@moo.holy.cow> <3C7464B4.70004@adacel.com> <u3adu3bgb3.du3@localhost.localdomain> <3C74803F.4090004@adacel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 06:06, Michael Wardle wrote: > Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > >>>and ... unless noted otherwise, in computer context, i do not ever > >>>assume 'kilo' to represent 1000 number, only 1024. > >>> > >>This is part of the problem. kilo only ever means 1000, and to use it > >>otherwise is incorrect. You can not steal SI prefixes and redefine them > >>how you wish. > >> > > > > SI prefixes are defined for use on SI units, aren't they? As far as I'm > > concerned, "byte" is a computer-industry unit with associated jargonized > > prefixes. When you're talking about bytes or words, k, K, M, G, T, etc, > > have non-SI meanings... > > I agree that "bit" and "byte" are not formal SI units, and so do not > formally fall under SI/CIPM "jurisdiction", however the choice to use SI > prefixes has implicitly caused comparison between these units and SI -- > not surprisingly -- and the exact meaning of kilo now needs to be > clarified so as to avoid confusion, and it *can not* mean 1024, as this > directly contradicts the international standard. > > Can you think of a sensible reason why kilobyte = 1000 bytes is not a > good idea? > Standards are a tool to facilitate communication, and shouldn't be considered a goal. If they do not improve understanding, or worse, make things less comprehensible, then I see no reason to adapt them. If everyone uses 'abc', why care about some far-away entity coming up with rules that nobody really cares about? (I'm not directly implying that's the case; I'm merely questioning the purpose of it all.) If we decide to comply, all occurrences in the code should be changed too, as not to create a bigger chaos. We simply can't use KiB in our documentation, and ignore the difference with the real-life topics we are documenting. This is a decision that can't be taken lightly... Surely not for something that might never find steady ground in the 'real world' (no matter how convenient or correct). If we decide not to comply, but to at least be consistent about this, well, it's just a matter of agreeing on _something_. Whatever we do, there should be consistency. (I have a feeling this discussion isn't even remotely over yet...) > Would I be correct in assuming that you do not use (and therefore are > not familiar with) SI? > That's not the most important thing here. How can we expect, getting confused ourselves, to write clear documentation to possibly less technical people? And on a side note, the documentation should follow the system; in case of KiB adaptation, this should start in de code, and only _then_ we can adapt the docs to reflect the system. <my humble opinion> > > The disk drive people are just wrong; > > No, they are quite correct, however they are in the minority. > > I am not aware of any official body that has standardized kilobyte as > meaning 1024 bytes. It may have been incorrectly assumed that kilobyte > meant 1024 bytes, as the difference was deemed insignificant, however at > no point could a kilobyte have been correctly referred to as 1024 bytes. > (Same for megabyte, gigabyte, and so on.) > > Please point to some real evidence (preferably a standard) that proves > the assertion (1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes) correct. > I'd like to say it again: that doesn't matter, in my eyes. We are _not_ the ones who come up (or should come up) with these regulations; our 'job' is writing documenation that's easy to understand. Whichever choice leads to that; regardless of SI. <again, IMHO> > > I'd prefer some FDP introduction explain this and that "B" means "byte" > > and "b" means "bit", though I wouldn't mind a requirement to use the > > full words except where the meaning is clear from the context or a note. > > > > > > P.S. It's unfortunate that our industry borrowed terms and used them in > > familiar contexts with strange meanings (as I hate to see happening with > > "proprietary", BTW), but it has happened and attempts to introduce "bi" > > prefixes will cause more trouble than it solves. > > What is the 100% formal, standardized method for referring to 1000 > bytes? There is none. What is the 100% formal, standardized method for > referring to 1024 bytes? There is none to my knowledge. > [...] Regards, Wouter Van Hemel 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?1014270449.303.117.camel>