Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Steven Cole]

Greetings all,

I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.

Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion related to this
change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a double take.

Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of Configure.help:

@@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
   If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
   more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
   (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
-  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
-  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
+  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
+  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
   space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
   as possible.

Steven

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Matt Bernstein]

I believe that the main purpose of documentation, help etc is to get the
information across in a way that is most easily understood, ie that
minimises the number of support questions.. ..and everyone surely knows
what GB, MB and KB stand for. So let's leave it at that. Where's the "i"
in "megabyte" ? Or is 1MiB 1000000 bytes, rather than 1048576?

It's confusing enough with the 10 "Mb" networking / 1.44 "MB" floppy
distinction already..

At 11:02 -0700 Steven Cole wrote:

>Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion related to this
>change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a double take.
>
>Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of Configure.help:
>
>@@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
>   If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
>   more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
>   (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
>-  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
>-  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
>+  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
>+  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
>   space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
>   as possible.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Randolph Bentson]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 06:16:24PM +0000, Matt Bernstein wrote:
> I believe that the main purpose of documentation, help etc is to get the
> information across in a way that is most easily understood, ie that
> minimises the number of support questions.. ..and everyone surely knows
> what GB, MB and KB stand for. So let's leave it at that. Where's the "i"
> in "megabyte" ? Or is 1MiB 1000000 bytes, rather than 1048576?
> 
> It's confusing enough with the 10 "Mb" networking / 1.44 "MB" floppy
> distinction already..

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.  Not enough people
know that KB stands for 1000B.  I know through experience that
KB is often used for 1024B.  The introduction of KiB makes it
clear that 1024B is intended.

-- 
Randolph Bentson
bentson@holmsjoen.com

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Randolph Bentson wrote:

> I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.  Not enough people
> know that KB stands for 1000B.  I know through experience that
> KB is often used for 1024B.  The introduction of KiB makes it
> clear that 1024B is intended.

Given the confusion its raised in this thread already, this strikes
me as a particularly bad change. Some of those definitions in
Configure.help have been there for the better part of 10 years
now, and I don't recall anyone in the past few years needing to
ask for clarification.

Is this really that important ?

Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Nicholas Knight]

On Thursday 20 December 2001 11:00 am, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> > I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.  Not enough people
> > know that KB stands for 1000B.  I know through experience that
> > KB is often used for 1024B.  The introduction of KiB makes it
> > clear that 1024B is intended.
>
> Given the confusion its raised in this thread already, this strikes
> me as a particularly bad change. Some of those definitions in
> Configure.help have been there for the better part of 10 years

My *mind* has had those definitions hard-coded for the better part of 8 
years. This is only going to serve to confuse newcomers (and for that 
matter, anyone who doesn't read this thread.) 

to: linux-kernel
from: Joe Newbie[1-areallyfrigginbignumber]
date: mid-2.5 continuing well beyond any foreseeable date.
message: "What's a GiB? And why are the Men in Black taking over the 
kernel?"


I leave you with that thought.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Michael Dunsky]

Hi!

You are close - he uses "MiB" as short for "mebi" - Mega-binary.
Don't laugh - this is official! It's exactly for what you said:

What is 1 MB?
1.000.000 Byte
or
1.048.576 Byte


For a short reading I recommend this:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html


ciao

Michael


Matt Bernstein wrote:

  > I believe that the main purpose of documentation, help etc is to get the
  > information across in a way that is most easily understood, ie that
  > minimises the number of support questions.. ..and everyone surely knows
  > what GB, MB and KB stand for. So let's leave it at that. Where's the "i"
  > in "megabyte" ? Or is 1MiB 1000000 bytes, rather than 1048576?
  >
  > It's confusing enough with the 10 "Mb" networking / 1.44 "MB" floppy
  > distinction already..
  >
  > At 11:02 -0700 Steven Cole wrote:
  >
  >
  >>Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some
discussion related to this
  >>change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me
do a double take.
  >>
  >>Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of
Configure.help:
  >>
  >>@@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
  >>  If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
  >>  more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
  >>  (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
  >>-  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
  >>-  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
  >>+  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
  >>+  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual 
memory
  >>  space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
  >>  as possible.
  >>
  >
  > -
  > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
  > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
  > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
  > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  >
  >

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Thursday 20 December 2001 12:47, Michael Dunsky wrote:
> Hi!
>
> You are close - he uses "MiB" as short for "mebi" - Mega-binary.
> Don't laugh - this is official! It's exactly for what you said:
>
> What is 1 MB?
> 1.000.000 Byte
> or
> 1.048.576 Byte
>
>
> For a short reading I recommend this:
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
>
>
> ciao

Tebi or not Tebi? That is the question. Mebi this is a good idea, 
but I doubt it.   How many understand people (Americans at least) 
understand SI units before this change??   I say, gibe a break!

-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Stephen Satchell]

At 07:47 PM 12/20/01 +0100, Michael Dunsky wrote:
>You are close - he uses "MiB" as short for "mebi" - Mega-binary.
>Don't laugh - this is official! It's exactly for what you said:
>[snip]
>For a short reading I recommend this:
>
>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Yet on this page you point to, the first paragraph under the table reads as 
follows:

"It is important to recognize that the new prefixes for binary multiples 
are not part of the International System of Units (SI), the modern metric 
system."

That disclaimer makes it highly UNofficial.

It also goes against legacy use, as well as use within the kernel and GNU 
utilities for informative messages.

We have enough problem introducing non-technical people to Linux as it is 
without inflicting new and obscure abbreviations.  Notice that the 
discussion is about changes to Configure.help, the WORST place to start 
introducing new and not-widely-used notation.

Hey, it's not a bad idea, but I want it adopted first in things like 
stories in the mass media before we start introducing it in Configure.help.

Stephen Satchell

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Robert Love]

On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 13:02, Steven Cole wrote:

> I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/ Eric has decided to follow the
> following standard: IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols
> to be used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and
> electronics. and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to
> KiB, Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.

Personally?  This is hideous, confusing, and unneeded.

GiB in my mind is a gigabit, anyhow.

	Robert Love

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Eric S. Raymond]

Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>:
> I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76,
> available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/ Eric has decided to
> follow the following standard: IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11,
> Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2:
> Telecommunications and electronics.  and has changed all the
> abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc,
> etc.

This change came as a patch from David Woodhouse.  I think the new
abbreviations are awful ugly, myself, but they do have the virtue of
not being ambiguous.  So I swallowed hard and took the patch.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.
        -- A.E. Van Vogt, "The Weapon Shops Of Isher", ASF December 1942

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Steven Cole]

On Thursday 20 December 2001 11:52 am, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>:
> > I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76,
> > available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/ Eric has decided to
> > follow the following standard: IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11,
> > Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2:
> > Telecommunications and electronics.  and has changed all the
> > abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc,
> > etc.
>
> This change came as a patch from David Woodhouse.  I think the new
> abbreviations are awful ugly, myself, but they do have the virtue of
> not being ambiguous.  So I swallowed hard and took the patch.

I personally agree with Matt Bernstein who wrote:
>I believe that the main purpose of documentation, help etc is to get the
>information across in a way that is most easily understood, ie that
>minimises the number of support questions.

I've obviously been wrong all along on this, but I had always assumed
(incorrectly) that mega when applied to binary things really meant 
2 to the 20th, and that the confusion came from disk manufacturers who
chose whatever definition made their products seem bigger.

So, if we really want to be pedantically correct, let's all swallow 
_really_ hard, and go all the way on this.  Or, are the UGLY changes
below actually technically wrong?

Cheers, and happy holidays,
Steven

--- Configure.help.2.76	Thu Dec 20 12:00:46 2001
+++ Configure.help	Thu Dec 20 12:08:13 2001
@@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
 #	Eric S. Raymond <mailto:esr@thyrsus.com>
 #	Steven Cole <mailto:elenstev@mesatop.com>
 #
-# Merged version 2.76: current with 2.4.17-rc2/2.5.1.
+# Merged version 2.77: current with 2.4.17-rc2/2.5.1.
+# Warning: A barf bag is a recommended accessory this version.
 #
 # This version of the Linux kernel configuration help texts
 # corresponds to kernel versions 2.4.x and 2.5.x.
@@ -334,25 +335,25 @@
 # Choice: himem
 High Memory support
 CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM
-  Linux can use up to 64 Gigabytes of physical memory on x86 systems.
+  Linux can use up to 64 Gibibytes of physical memory on x86 systems.
   However, the address space of 32-bit x86 processors is only 4
-  Gigabytes large. That means that, if you have a large amount of
+  Gibibytes large. That means that, if you have a large amount of
   physical memory, not all of it can be "permanently mapped" by the
   kernel. The physical memory that's not permanently mapped is called
   "high memory".
 
   If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
-  more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
+  more than 960 mebibytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
   (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
   "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
   virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
   space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
   as possible.
 
-  If the machine has between 1 and 4 Gigabytes physical RAM, then
+  If the machine has between 1 and 4 Gibibytes physical RAM, then
   answer "4GB" here.
 
-  If more than 4 Gigabytes is used then answer "64GB" here. This
+  If more than 4 Gibibytes is used then answer "64GB" here. This
   selection turns Intel PAE (Physical Address Extension) mode on.
   PAE implements 3-level paging on IA32 processors. PAE is fully
   supported by Linux, PAE mode is implemented on all recent Intel
@@ -370,12 +371,12 @@
 4GB
 CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G
   Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and between 1 and 4
-  gigabytes of physical RAM.
+  gibibytes of physical RAM.
 
 64GB
 CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G
   Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and more than 4
-  gigabytes of physical RAM.
+  gibibytes of physical RAM.
 
 Normal floppy disk support
 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_FD
@@ -13509,7 +13510,7 @@
 Enable kernel debugging symbols
 CONFIG_DEBUGSYM
   When this is enabled, the User-Mode Linux binary will include
-  debugging symbols.  This enlarges the binary by a few megabytes,
+  debugging symbols.  This enlarges the binary by a few mebibytes,
   but aids in tracking down kernel problems in UML.  It is required
   if you intend to do any kernel development.
 
@@ -18296,7 +18297,7 @@
 
 MSND buffer size (KiB)
 CONFIG_MSND_FIFOSIZE
-  Configures the size of each audio buffer, in kilobytes, for
+  Configures the size of each audio buffer, in kibibytes, for
   recording and playing in the MultiSound drivers (both the Classic
   and Pinnacle). Larger values reduce the chance of data overruns at
   the expense of overall latency. If unsure, use the default.
@@ -18791,7 +18792,7 @@
 CONFIG_REMOTE_DEBUG
   If you say Y here, it will be possible to remotely debug the MIPS
   kernel using gdb. This enlarges your kernel image disk size by
-  several megabytes and requires a machine with more than 16 MiB,
+  several mebibytes and requires a machine with more than 16 MiB,
   better 32 MiB RAM to avoid excessive linking time. This is only
   useful for kernel hackers. If unsure, say N.
 
@@ -24244,7 +24245,7 @@
   kernel using gdb, if you have the gdb-sh-stub package from
   www.m17n.org (or any conforming standard LinuxSH BIOS) in FLASH or
   EPROM.  This enlarges your kernel image disk size by several
-  megabytes but allows you to load, run and debug the kernel image
+  mebibytes but allows you to load, run and debug the kernel image
   remotely using gdb.  This is only useful for kernel hackers.  If
   unsure, say N.
 

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Eric S. Raymond]

Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>:
> I've obviously been wrong all along on this, but I had always assumed
> (incorrectly) that mega when applied to binary things really meant 
> 2 to the 20th, and that the confusion came from disk manufacturers who
> chose whatever definition made their products seem bigger.
> 
> So, if we really want to be pedantically correct, let's all swallow 
> _really_ hard, and go all the way on this.  Or, are the UGLY changes
> below actually technically wrong?

Alas, I don't know.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people.  The possession
of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. 
        -- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Marc Schiffbauer]

* Steven Cole schrieb am 20.12.01 um 20:32 Uhr:
> -  If the machine has between 1 and 4 Gigabytes physical RAM, then
> +  If the machine has between 1 and 4 Gibibytes physical RAM, then
>    answer "4GB" here.
             ^^^
             this has to be GiB then, does'n it?
          

>  
> -  If more than 4 Gigabytes is used then answer "64GB" here. This
> +  If more than 4 Gibibytes is used then answer "64GB" here. This
                                                   ^^^^
                                                   and 64 GiB for
                                                   that one?
                                                   

-Marc
-- 
|                                                                  |
| http://www.links2linux.de <-- Von Linux-Usern fuer Linux-User    |

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Gábor Lénárt]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 01:52:13PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>:
> > I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76,
> > available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/ Eric has decided to
> > follow the following standard: IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11,
> > Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2:
> > Telecommunications and electronics.  and has changed all the
> > abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc,
> > etc.

What? AFAIK 'K' means 1000 in SI. However since computers use binary
numbers, the number (2^n) which was the most closer to 1000 was selected to
be used as 'K' for indicating information amount, where n=10. [for decimal
numbers 10^n (n=3) is used for 'K']. And so on with 'M', 'G' ... Sorry if
I was wrong about this ...

- Gabor

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Richard B. Johnson]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII, Size: 2267 bytes --]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 01:52:13PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>:
> > > I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76,
> > > available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/ Eric has decided to
> > > follow the following standard: IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11,
> > > Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2:
> > > Telecommunications and electronics.  and has changed all the
> > > abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc,
> > > etc.
> 
> What? AFAIK 'K' means 1000 in SI. However since computers use binary
> numbers, the number (2^n) which was the most closer to 1000 was selected to
> be used as 'K' for indicating information amount, where n=10. [for decimal
> numbers 10^n (n=3) is used for 'K']. And so on with 'M', 'G' ... Sorry if
> I was wrong about this ...
> 

One of the many bad things about changing this kind of stuff is that
it doesn't even follow the rules, i.e., upper case is used for proper
names an/or where there could be a conflict between a previously-defined
abbreviation such as milliampere and megampere (mA, MA). Instead, most
everybody uses K for kilo and it's as absolutely incorrect as possible.
The existing symbols work by fiat. You can't make them "correct" by
following incorrect rules.

If we change anything......, we should define a new system of units,
PI, instead of SI. The basic unit is measurement is the Penguin. It is
abbreviated as p.

Powers of 2:

2 ^ 0  =  p    (1)
2 ^ 1  =  dp   dipenguin
2 ^ 2  =  qp   hepenguin
2 ^ 3  =  op   octpenguim
2 ^ 4  =  hp   hexpenguim
2 ^ 5  =  ddp  duodipenguin
2 ^ 6  =  oop  octoctpenguin
2 ^ 7  =  ohp  octohexpenguin
2 ^ 8  =  hhp  hexahexpenguin
2 ^ 9  =  dhhp duohexahexpenguin
2 ^ 10 =  kp   kilopenguin
2 ^ 20 =  mp   megapenguin
2 ^ 30 =  gp   gigapenguin 
...etc.

........ otherwise we should leave it alone!

Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
 Santa Claus is coming to town...
          He knows if you've been sleeping,
             He knows if you're awake;
          He knows if you've been bad or good,
             So he must be Attorney General Ashcroft.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Gábor Lénárt]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> One of the many bad things about changing this kind of stuff is that
> it doesn't even follow the rules, i.e., upper case is used for proper
> names an/or where there could be a conflict between a previously-defined
> abbreviation such as milliampere and megampere (mA, MA). Instead, most

OK, that's true, 'MA' is a nightmare even for the first sight ...

> everybody uses K for kilo and it's as absolutely incorrect as possible.
> The existing symbols work by fiat. You can't make them "correct" by
> following incorrect rules.

Oh well, sorry, so let's say about 'k' and 'm'. However an engineer friend
of mine has just say that 'K' is 1024, and 'k' is 1000 ... I dunno anymore ...
[however I've never seen 'Kg' instead of 'kg', but 'mB' or 'mb' are ugly
when compared with 'Mb' and 'MB', not counting that 'b' is bit and 'B' is
byte ... well ... it's confusing sometimes ...]

> 2 ^ 0  =  p    (1)
> 2 ^ 1  =  dp   dipenguin
> 2 ^ 2  =  qp   hepenguin

Nice ;-)

Sorry for OT, I'm going to convert myself into private mails when somebody
will reply ...

- Gabor

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Andreas Dilger]

On Dec 20, 2001  22:14 +0100, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> > everybody uses K for kilo and it's as absolutely incorrect as possible.
> > The existing symbols work by fiat. You can't make them "correct" by
> > following incorrect rules.
> 
> Oh well, sorry, so let's say about 'k' and 'm'. However an engineer friend
> of mine has just say that 'K' is 1024, and 'k' is 1000 ... I dunno anymore ...

Well, they are wrong, because 'K' is Kelvin, and not kilo-.

> [however I've never seen 'Kg' instead of 'kg', but 'mB' or 'mb' are ugly
> when compared with 'Mb' and 'MB', not counting that 'b' is bit and 'B' is
> byte ... well ... it's confusing sometimes ...]

Especially since few people work on 1/1000 of a byte (i.e. 'm' is milli,
like mm=millimeter, and not 'M' which is Mega-).  So mB and mb are just
plain wrong.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Mike Eldridge]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0100, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > One of the many bad things about changing this kind of stuff is that
> > it doesn't even follow the rules, i.e., upper case is used for proper
> > names an/or where there could be a conflict between a previously-defined
> > abbreviation such as milliampere and megampere (mA, MA). Instead, most
> 
> OK, that's true, 'MA' is a nightmare even for the first sight ...
> 
> > everybody uses K for kilo and it's as absolutely incorrect as possible.
> > The existing symbols work by fiat. You can't make them "correct" by
> > following incorrect rules.
> 
> Oh well, sorry, so let's say about 'k' and 'm'. However an engineer friend
> of mine has just say that 'K' is 1024, and 'k' is 1000 ... I dunno anymore ...

i have seen kB instead of KB in many places.  and the only place i've
ever seen kilo abbreviated as K has been with respect to binary.

> [however I've never seen 'Kg' instead of 'kg', but 'mB' or 'mb' are ugly
> when compared with 'Mb' and 'MB', not counting that 'b' is bit and 'B' is
> byte ... well ... it's confusing sometimes ...]

i was going to comment about simply using lowercase equivalents, but
then milli already has 'm', although the concept of a millibyte (or even
millibit) is absurd.

-mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /~\  The ASCII                       all that is gold does not glitter
   \ /  Ribbon Campaign                 not all those who wander are lost
    X   Against HTML                          -- jrr tolkien
   / \  Email!

          radiusd+mysql: http://www.cafes.net/~diz/kiss-radiusd           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Mike Jagdis]

Mike Eldridge wrote:

> i have seen kB instead of KB in many places.  and the only place i've
> ever seen kilo abbreviated as K has been with respect to binary.
> 
>>[however I've never seen 'Kg' instead of 'kg', but 'mB' or 'mb' are ugly
>>when compared with 'Mb' and 'MB', not counting that 'b' is bit and 'B' is
>>byte ... well ... it's confusing sometimes ...]
>>
> 
> i was going to comment about simply using lowercase equivalents, but
> then milli already has 'm', although the concept of a millibyte (or even
> millibit) is absurd.

Why? For instance a millibyte/s might be a hearbeat across a LAN every
hour or so or it might be a control traffic requirement for a deep space
probe. You might not have an immediate use for the term but it has a
specific meaning - and certainly isn't "absurd" (see definition on
http://www.dict.org).

Engineers not (yet) being familiar with the relatively new SI (and IEEE)
binary prefixes is just about acceptable. "Engineers" that misuse k/K
and (worse!) m/M should be in a different field entirely. The SI system
is generally taught as basic science to pre-teenagers. There is no
excuse!

				Mike

P.S. Merry Christmas / Mid winter festival / whatever you choose
to celebrate :-)

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Riley Williams]

Hi Mike.

>> [however I've never seen 'Kg' instead of 'kg', but 'mB' or 'mb' are
>> ugly when compared with 'Mb' and 'MB', not counting that 'b' is bit
>> and 'B' is byte ... well ... it's confusing sometimes ...]

> i was going to comment about simply using lowercase equivalents, but
> then milli already has 'm', although the concept of a millibyte (or
> even millibit) is absurd.

I remember reading somewhere that the Voyager space probes now
communicate information back to earth at the incredibly fast rate of 10
minutes per byte - which my mental maths says is somewhere in the region
of 1.6 mB per second - using precicely the unit you decry.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    /~\  The ASCII                       all that is gold does not glitter
>    \ /  Ribbon Campaign                 not all those who wander are lost
>     X   Against HTML                          -- jrr tolkien
>    / \  Email!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you purloined the emblem of the Scottish National Party ???
Refer to http://www.snp.org.uk/ for details.

Best wishes from Riley.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Jonathan Amery]

In article <3C2315D6.40105@purplet.demon.co.uk> you write:
>Engineers not (yet) being familiar with the relatively new SI (and IEEE)
>binary prefixes is just about acceptable. "Engineers" that misuse k/K
>and (worse!) m/M should be in a different field entirely. The SI system
>is generally taught as basic science to pre-teenagers. There is no
>excuse!
>
 How many of them learn it though?

 Jonathan (occasionally guilty of s/kB/KB/ himself).

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Wednesday 02 January 2002 11:17, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> In article <3C2315D6.40105@purplet.demon.co.uk> you write:
> >Engineers not (yet) being familiar with the relatively new SI (and IEEE)
> >binary prefixes is just about acceptable. "Engineers" that misuse k/K
> >and (worse!) m/M should be in a different field entirely. The SI system
> >is generally taught as basic science to pre-teenagers. There is no
> >excuse!
>
>  How many of them learn it though?
>
>  Jonathan (occasionally guilty of s/kB/KB/ himself).
>

For the 10th time, the K v. k issue is due to the standards
body ignoring common sense and following tradition instead.
All positive powers of ten should have upper-case letters
	(D,H,K,M,T,P)
and negative powers of ten should use lower-case letters.
	(d,c,m,n,p)

The KB meaning 2^10 B instead of 10^3 B is just plain dumb,
and that's why the standards body tried to fix it with KiB.
But again, this solution was considered to look and sound
goofy and to be based on stupid mathematical games;
hence this whole long thread.   <rant>A thread which has shown
to me that most comp. sci. folks lack common sense and
are pendantic to the max.</rant>


-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 2, 2002 09:17 pm, Timothy Covell wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2002 11:17, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > In article <3C2315D6.40105@purplet.demon.co.uk> you write:
> > >Engineers not (yet) being familiar with the relatively new SI (and IEEE)
> > >binary prefixes is just about acceptable. "Engineers" that misuse k/K
> > >and (worse!) m/M should be in a different field entirely. The SI system
> > >is generally taught as basic science to pre-teenagers. There is no
> > >excuse!
> >
> >  How many of them learn it though?
> >
> >  Jonathan (occasionally guilty of s/kB/KB/ himself).
> 
> For the 10th time, the K v. k issue is due to the standards
> body ignoring common sense and following tradition instead.
> All positive powers of ten should have upper-case letters
> 	(D,H,K,M,T,P)
> and negative powers of ten should use lower-case letters.
> 	(d,c,m,n,p)

So if the box says '16 mB' flash, that's 16 millibytes, right?

> The KB meaning 2^10 B instead of 10^3 B is just plain dumb,
> and that's why the standards body tried to fix it with KiB.
> But again, this solution was considered to look and sound
> goofy and to be based on stupid mathematical games;
> hence this whole long thread.   <rant>A thread which has shown
> to me that most comp. sci. folks lack common sense and
> are pendantic to the max.</rant>

Yes, true, and?

--
Daniel

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Wednesday 02 January 2002 22:23, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 2, 2002 09:17 pm, Timothy Covell wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 January 2002 11:17, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > > In article <3C2315D6.40105@purplet.demon.co.uk> you write:
> > > >Engineers not (yet) being familiar with the relatively new SI (and
> > > > IEEE) binary prefixes is just about acceptable. "Engineers" that
> > > > misuse k/K and (worse!) m/M should be in a different field entirely.
> > > > The SI system is generally taught as basic science to pre-teenagers.
> > > > There is no excuse!
> > >
> > >  How many of them learn it though?
> > >
> > >  Jonathan (occasionally guilty of s/kB/KB/ himself).
> >
> > For the 10th time, the K v. k issue is due to the standards
> > body ignoring common sense and following tradition instead.
> > All positive powers of ten should have upper-case letters
> > 	(D,H,K,M,T,P)
> > and negative powers of ten should use lower-case letters.
> > 	(d,c,m,n,p)
>
> So if the box says '16 mB' flash, that's 16 millibytes, right?

Of course that's what it should mean, but obviously the folks
who packaged it were not too up on things.  And, let's face
the music here, if we as group of supposedly smart people
can't come close to reaching any consensus, can we blame
marketing folks for mislabeling something???

>
> > The KB meaning 2^10 B instead of 10^3 B is just plain dumb,
> > and that's why the standards body tried to fix it with KiB.
> > But again, this solution was considered to look and sound
> > goofy and to be based on stupid mathematical games;
> > hence this whole long thread.   <rant>A thread which has shown
> > to me that most comp. sci. folks lack common sense and
> > are pendantic to the max.</rant>
>
> Yes, true, and?

Sorry, I was feeling frustrated and should've kept that internal.
<rant>
But the fact is that I've presented what I think are good arguments
on how to "fix" things in a rational and _consistant_ manner.  
That is the point of metrics after all, to have a simple, rational,
and consistant set of units of measurement to replace the
inconsistant units that were previously used.   If we can't do
this, then there is no point in converting.   Americans are right
to continue using English/America/Imperial units if even the
so called cognescenti can't get metrics right.
</rant>

-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Lionel Bouton]

Eric S. Raymond wrote:

> 
> 
> This change came as a patch from David Woodhouse.  I think the new
> abbreviations are awful ugly, myself, but they do have the virtue of
> not being ambiguous.  So I swallowed hard and took the patch.
> 

This could even have the nice side effect of teaching something to Linux 
newbies (mainly the fact that the difference between 2^10 and 10^3 
matters in some areas). I see 2 cases :

- already encountered the kiB/MiB/GiB notation and understood the 
meaning: no problem if we take out of the equation the aesthetic of the 
abreviations.

- this is a new thing for the reader, 3 cases:
  . Computer literate person : she uses her intuition and understand its 
meaning : no problem apart the time used to put her intuition at work,
  . Computer illiterate person which don't care enough : she doesn't 
understand the difference with kB/MB/GB and takes the notation as a 
different syntax but with the same semantic : the only problem would be 
a temporary confusion (from a fraction of a second to several minutes) 
until this assumption is made. It certainly would be made by computer 
illiterate people who are lost in the first place: we trade a 
misunderstanding for another.
  . Computer illiterate person which really tries to understand : she 
doesn't understand and take the time to document herself : no problem 
she might discover something she didn't even thought about.

This is a simplified view but I believe the actual readers' behaviour 
would be somehow a combination of several of the above cases.

So what's the tradeoff :
* aesthetic and shor time spent in temporary confusion or reflexion
* for clarity and education of some people in the end.

Hiding complexity in the docs would only keep some users ignorant.
This is my personal opinion but don't we prefer educated users instead 
of ignorant ones ?

I find the choice obvious...
We could argue on the choice of these particular abreviations against 
others but as I don't see any other around...

LB

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > This change came as a patch from David Woodhouse.  I think the new
> > abbreviations are awful ugly, myself, but they do have the virtue of
> > not being ambiguous.  So I swallowed hard and took the patch.
> > 
> 
> This could even have the nice side effect of teaching something to Linux 
> newbies (mainly the fact that the difference between 2^10 and 10^3 
> matters in some areas). I see 2 cases :
> 
> - already encountered the kiB/MiB/GiB notation and understood the 
> meaning: no problem if we take out of the equation the aesthetic of the 
> abreviations.

Heh, is it kiB or KiB? Anyway, I guess yes MiB units should be used.
We already have them in dmesg output. (And btw it confused me because
it reported *disk size* in MiB.... So I assumed MiB must be 10e6).

								Pavel
-- 
Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MiB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt,
details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Lionel Bouton]

Pavel Machek wrote:

>  
> Heh, is it kiB or KiB?


Don't know, didn't read IEC 60027-2. From Steven first post on the 
subject and Configure.help content, I must be wrong and it is KiB.

Lionel.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <200112201721.KAA05522@tstac.esa.lanl.gov> you wrote:
> Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, 
> Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology -
> Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB,
> Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.

I did this for nettools (i.e. ifconfig), too:

          RX bytes:2120660294 (1.9 GiB)  TX bytes:341183013 (325.3 MiB)

man page:

       Since net-tools 1.60-4 ifconfig is printing byte  counters
       with  SI  units. So 1 KiB are 2^10 byte. Note, the numbers
       are truncated to one decimal (which can by quite  a large
       error if you consider 0.1 PiB is 112.589.990.684.262 bytes :)
...
SEE ALSO
       route(8), netstat(8), arp(8), rarp(8), ipchains(8)
       http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html  -  Prefixes
       for binary multiples
				   

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Pozsar Balazs]

Please NO NO NO NO!!

Why on earth is it good to develop misunderstandings and inconsistency
with well- and widely-known historical abbrevs?

I (and I think I'm far not alone) would hate to see those abbrevs. I
really don't want to vomit every time I read configure.help or an
ifconfig output.


This is a 3-year old decision, and haven't seen it in use anywhere before.
If this knew style would be the common use in IT, then this change is OK.
But _not_ now. (and hopefully never).

So may I suggest considering this change a few years later, _if_ it comes
into common use?

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:

> In article <200112201721.KAA05522@tstac.esa.lanl.gov> you wrote:
> > Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> > IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11,
> > Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology -
> > Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> > and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB,
> > Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
>
> I did this for nettools (i.e. ifconfig), too:
>
>           RX bytes:2120660294 (1.9 GiB)  TX bytes:341183013 (325.3 MiB)
>
> man page:
>
>        Since net-tools 1.60-4 ifconfig is printing byte  counters
>        with  SI  units. So 1 KiB are 2^10 byte. Note, the numbers
>        are truncated to one decimal (which can by quite  a large
>        error if you consider 0.1 PiB is 112.589.990.684.262 bytes :)
> ...
> SEE ALSO
>        route(8), netstat(8), arp(8), rarp(8), ipchains(8)
>        http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html  -  Prefixes
>        for binary multiples
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-- 
pozsy

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Phil Howard]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Pozsar Balazs wrote:

| Please NO NO NO NO!!
| 
| Why on earth is it good to develop misunderstandings and inconsistency
| with well- and widely-known historical abbrevs?
| 
| I (and I think I'm far not alone) would hate to see those abbrevs. I
| really don't want to vomit every time I read configure.help or an
| ifconfig output.
| 
| 
| This is a 3-year old decision, and haven't seen it in use anywhere before.
| If this knew style would be the common use in IT, then this change is OK.
| But _not_ now. (and hopefully never).
| 
| So may I suggest considering this change a few years later, _if_ it comes
| into common use?

I can understand your point about not jumping into something that will turn
out (possibly) to be a big flop and cause new confusion.  However, I'd like
to point out that any new idea will _never_ become adopted if everyone takes
the position of "I'm not going to do it until most everyone else does first".

If this is going to be the common usage, I believe we need to be the lead on
this and do it.  The question is, how can we determine if it will be common
_before_ anyone else takes the lead to make it be so.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| phil-nospam@ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://phil.ipal.org/     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Bernd Eckenfels]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Pozsar Balazs wrote:
> Why on earth is it good to develop misunderstandings and inconsistency
> with well- and widely-known historical abbrevs?

There is no well understood abrev. for power of two units, thats why
somebody had to introduce them.

Actually it was not my Idea, but since I got multiple error reports for
multible writings (and that even while the original count is visible in the
ouput) I decided to go with the standard.

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
  (OO)      -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wendelinusstrasse39.76646Bruchsal.de --
 ( .. )  ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
  o--o     *plush*  2048/93600EFD  eckes@irc  +497257930613  BE5-RIPE
(O____O)  When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Pozsar Balazs]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Pozsar Balazs wrote:
> > Why on earth is it good to develop misunderstandings and inconsistency
> > with well- and widely-known historical abbrevs?
>
> There is no well understood abrev. for power of two units, thats why
> somebody had to introduce them.
>
> Actually it was not my Idea, but since I got multiple error reports for
> multible writings (and that even while the original count is visible in the
> ouput) I decided to go with the standard.

What error reports do you receive?

This might be a standard, but _it_is_not_adopted_anywhere! (at least I
haven't seen it anywhere (I might be blind)).
I would rather call standard something which is adopted in real life.

-- 
Balazs Pozsar

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.30.0112222114120.9228-100000@balu> you wrote:
> What error reports do you receive?

about kb, Kb, kB beeing wrong (even if the number in bytes is listed ppl
complaint they had to pay more money then expected... i wont comment on this,
but I have now a solution which will get used, I am sure :)

Greetings
Bernd

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Ian Molton]

On a sunny Sat, 22 Dec 2001 04:47:43 -0600 Phil Howard gathered a sheaf of
electrons and etched in their motions the following immortal words:

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Pozsar Balazs wrote:

> I can understand your point about not jumping into something that will
> turn out (possibly) to be a big flop and cause new confusion.  However,
> I'd like to point out that any new idea will _never_ become adopted if
> everyone takes the position of "I'm not going to do it until most
> everyone else does first".

I hope *everyone* takes just that position. MiB GiB. yeah, and I've got a
miB right here. fractional bits. ha!

fucking moronic is a phrase that springs to mind. probably something an
accountant thought of whilst twiddling his/her thumbs staring at excel.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Stephen Satchell]

At 04:47 AM 12/22/01 -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
>I can understand your point about not jumping into something that will turn
>out (possibly) to be a big flop and cause new confusion.  However, I'd like
>to point out that any new idea will _never_ become adopted if everyone takes
>the position of "I'm not going to do it until most everyone else does first".

Let's make clear what we are talking about.  We are talking about making 
the change to the one place that will be exposed to the non-technical user, 
but not anywhere else (internal documentation, comments to the source code, 
output from /proc, userland programs).  In other words, the absolutely 
worst place in the GNU/Linux system to introduce new and confusing usage 
that is not widely used.

Get the hint?  Let's change usage FIRST in the places that don't have the 
exposure of a Help File to the general public, THEN consider making the 
change once the users (technical and non-) have had a chance to voice their 
opinion.

I don't know about y'all, but my non-technical clients have enough problems 
with the historical abbreviations and terminology without being thrown this 
curve.  Unless you can get the business community to cry out for the change 
(so that BSD, what's left of BeOS, and Microsoft make the change) this is a 
Bad Idea(tm).

Look, I agree that there is significant merit to KiB et. al., but the 
marketplace has not always selected that which is best.  That's the nature 
of the marketplace.

Stephen Satchell

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[David Woodhouse]

list@fluent2.pyramid.net said:
>  Look, I agree that there is significant merit to KiB et. al., but the
>  marketplace has not always selected that which is best.  That's the
> nature  of the marketplace. 

The marketplace selected Windows.

If you are more interested in the choices of the marketplace than in
technical correctness, one has to wonder what you're doing on this mailing
list.

--
dwmw2

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:43:34AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> list@fluent2.pyramid.net said:
> >  Look, I agree that there is significant merit to KiB et. al., but the
> >  marketplace has not always selected that which is best.  That's the
> > nature  of the marketplace. 
> 
> The marketplace selected Windows.
> 
> If you are more interested in the choices of the marketplace than in
> technical correctness, one has to wonder what you're doing on this mailing
> list.

Well, I always assumed Linux was supposed to "work damn well", not
"be technically correct". 

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Stephen Satchell]

At 10:43 AM 12/23/01 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>If you are more interested in the choices of the marketplace than in
>technical correctness, one has to wonder what you're doing on this mailing
>list.

Nice ad hominem attack, David.  Attack the messenger.  Good boy.

If you recall (or perhaps you have placed me in your kill file) I mentioned 
that the last place you want to make a sudden change in terminology is in 
the most public of places, the configuration help file.  You also missed my 
call to use the new abbreviations FIRST within the kernel itself, in /proc, 
and in those userland utilities that report system resource usage.  If the 
universe of Linux users accept it (translation: no flames erupt) then you 
can consider populating the configuration help files with them.

I also mentioned that we have a very, very large base of "legacy users" who 
do not understand what MiB would be (outside of the context of the movie 
_Men in Black_) and who would become very, very confused.  In short, making 
the change would CONFUSE THE NON-TECHNICAL USERS more than they already are.

I'm not against technical correctness.  I'm against witless, thoughtless, 
blind deployment of an idea without considering the consequences of that 
deployment.

Don't underestimate the power of "the market."  Have you seen much about 
MINIX lately?

Stephen Satchell

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[David Woodhouse]

list@fluent2.pyramid.net said:
> >If you are more interested in the choices of the marketplace than in
> >technical correctness, one has to wonder what you're doing on this mailing
> >list.

> Nice ad hominem attack, David.  Attack the messenger.  Good boy.

That's not what I understood 'ad hominem' to mean. My understanding was that
ad hominem involved an attack on the person making the argument, followed by
an obviously false assertion that such attack renders the person's arguments
invalid, even though the details of the attack made are completely unrelated
to the matter being discussed.

Thus observing that you sent your mail using a Windows MUA, then declaring
that your argument is invalid because you're a Windows user and therefore 
obviously mentally deficient, would be an ad hominem attack.

My response, though it could possibly be called an 'attack' if you were
feeling particularly thin-skinned, was definitely based upon the discussion
at hand - I expressed surprise at the criterion of marketplace acceptability
which you used to justify your position.

>  I also mentioned that we have a very, very large base of "legacy
> users" who  do not understand what MiB would be (outside of the
> context of the movie  _Men in Black_) and who would become very, very
> confused.  In short, making  the change would CONFUSE THE
> NON-TECHNICAL USERS more than they already are. 

But this term _is_ used outside that context. And the context it's used in,
in just about all cases, makes it blindingly obvious to all but the densest
reader what the intended meaning is. Maybe _those_ people will remain
slightly confused about where we mean 10^3 and where we mean 2^10, but at
least people with a clue no longer have to be confused about such things.

As an example - what possible meaning could you contrive for 'KiB' in the
following:

  This lets you select the page size of the kernel.  For best IA-64
  performance, a page size of 8KiB or 16KiB is recommended.  For best
  IA-32 compatibility, a page size of 4KiB should be selected (the vast
  majority of IA-32 binaries work perfectly fine with a larger page
  size).  For Itanium systems, do NOT chose a page size larger than
  16KiB.

Surely it's difficult to imagine anyone reading that and coming to any 
other conclusion than the correct one?


I accept that is often appropriate to 'dumb down' documentation and
explanations somewhat to cater for the lowest common denominator members of 
the audience. 

It is much more rarely appropriate to dumb it down so far that it becomes
factually inaccurate. The tuition of physics at high school, in Further
Education and then Higher Education is perhaps an example of when such
oversimplifications are necessary and appropriate. Some people will never
need to know that Newton's Laws break down, and even if that weren't the
case, they wouldn't have a whelk's chance in a supernova of understanding
Relativity anyway. So why trouble them with it?

But in the situation at hand, there is no justification for catering to the
ignorant in our documentation to the extent that it becomes inaccurate. The
difficulty in understanding the correct text is just not sufficient to
justify the inaccuracies.

--
dwmw2

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Kai Henningsen]

pozsy@sch.bme.hu (Pozsar Balazs)  wrote on 22.12.01 in <Pine.GSO.4.30.0112221113120.2091-100000@balu>:

> Please NO NO NO NO!!
>
> Why on earth is it good to develop misunderstandings and inconsistency
> with well- and widely-known historical abbrevs?

It's not. The sooner we bury this computer-originated idiocy of using  
decimal prefixes to denote binary values, the better.

You *do* remember which version has the longer history, right?

MfG Kai

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.hel p.

[Nicholas Knight]

On Thursday 20 December 2001 10:36 am, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> > I believe that the main purpose of documentation, help etc is
> > to get the
> > information across in a way that is most easily understood, ie that
> > minimises the number of support questions.. ..and everyone
> > surely knows
> > what GB, MB and KB stand for. So let's leave it at that.
> > Where's the "i"
> > in "megabyte" ? Or is 1MiB 1000000 bytes, rather than 1048576?
>
> 1 MB isn't 1048576.
>
> it's 1000000
>
> mega isn't 2^10, it's 10^6
>
> so where are YOU coming from?
>
> (no, i'm not arguin, i don't particularly care.  but i'm
> pointing out that some people have completely firmly set
> definitions and some other people also have firm definitions
> and neither will agree the other's right.  MiB is the international
> standard for a 2^10 B(yte) specification.  so if you mean
> 2^10 bytes, you mean MiB, not MB, even if you don't like it :)

This "international" standard seems to have excluded a few countries. 
It wasn't until it was SET that I even heard of its existance. (And 
then only through SLASHDOT!)

Everyone I know has been using KB/MB/GB for 1024 forever. The *only* 
exception is networking, and the occasional FLASH/ROM size. The latter 
isn't very common discussion, and among those that it is, they'd know 
what the other was talking about. For the former, I can distinguish 
easily depending on who it is.

Someone without a lot of experience: I have a 1MB connection. (this 
user has a 1 Megabit connection)

Someone with experience: I have a 1mb/Mb connection. (This person has a 
1 megabit connection has used a "standard" abbreviation.)

Know how these standards came about?
Actual use. Not a bunch of "engineers" in a room arguing over how best 
to cause absurd changes in kernel help files.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Mike Harrold]

> 
> On Thursday 20 December 2001 10:36 am, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> > > I believe that the main purpose of documentation, help etc is
> > > to get the
> > > information across in a way that is most easily understood, ie that
> > > minimises the number of support questions.. ..and everyone
> > > surely knows
> > > what GB, MB and KB stand for. So let's leave it at that.
> > > Where's the "i"
> > > in "megabyte" ? Or is 1MiB 1000000 bytes, rather than 1048576?
> >
> > 1 MB isn't 1048576.
> >
> > it's 1000000
> >
> > mega isn't 2^10, it's 10^6
> >
> > so where are YOU coming from?
> >
> > (no, i'm not arguin, i don't particularly care.  but i'm
> > pointing out that some people have completely firmly set
> > definitions and some other people also have firm definitions
> > and neither will agree the other's right.  MiB is the international
> > standard for a 2^10 B(yte) specification.  so if you mean
> > 2^10 bytes, you mean MiB, not MB, even if you don't like it :)
> 
> This "international" standard seems to have excluded a few countries. 
> It wasn't until it was SET that I even heard of its existance. (And 
> then only through SLASHDOT!)

Yeah, no shit? The first time I buy 512MB of RAM and get 512000 KB
(aka 512000000 bytes) I am gonna be *PISSED*

/Mike

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Alan Cox]

> Yeah, no shit? The first time I buy 512MB of RAM and get 512000 KB
> (aka 512000000 bytes) I am gonna be *PISSED*

Have a work with your hard disk manufacturer then

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Mike Harrold]

> 
> > Yeah, no shit? The first time I buy 512MB of RAM and get 512000 KB
> > (aka 512000000 bytes) I am gonna be *PISSED*
> 
> Have a work with your hard disk manufacturer then
> 

That isn't quite so important. My kernel isn't likely to f*ck up when
a 40GB HD = 40,000,000,000. I'm sure it will die quite painfully with
RAM chips that are not powers of 2.

Regards,

/Mike

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Kent Borg]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:50:55PM -0500, Mike Harrold wrote:
> That isn't quite so important. My kernel isn't likely to f*ck up when
> a 40GB HD = 40,000,000,000. I'm sure it will die quite painfully with
> RAM chips that are not powers of 2.

Hell, your kernel isn't even going to barf if the "40GB" disk turns
out to be 39,501,824, or some other less than 40GB-of-any-flavor
value.  Why do a version of "40GB" that means 40,000,000,000 when
disks are *never* that size anyway?

Just because disk manufacturers are, um, creatve, with their marketing
numbers, do we have to mess with the numbers that are trustworthy?


-kb, the Kent who is not so sure he has *ever* seen anything in a
computer that really was such a big round decimal number, but the Kent
who sees precise round binary numbers frequently.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[lk]

>
> Hell, your kernel isn't even going to barf if the "40GB" disk turns
> out to be 39,501,824, or some other less than 40GB-of-any-flavor
> value.  Why do a version of "40GB" that means 40,000,000,000 when
> disks are *never* that size anyway?
>

If you would pay more attention, you can see that on most drives there is
a small note that says: 1MB = 1000000 bytes. This is why the drive
capacity is smaller than the manufacturer says.


> Just because disk manufacturers are, um, creatve, with their marketing
> numbers, do we have to mess with the numbers that are trustworthy?
>
>
> -kb, the Kent who is not so sure he has *ever* seen anything in a
> computer that really was such a big round decimal number, but the Kent
> who sees precise round binary numbers frequently.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Kent Borg]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 08:49:44PM +0200, lk@Aniela.EU.ORG wrote:
> If you would pay more attention, you can see that on most drives there is
> a small note that says: 1MB = 1000000 bytes. This is why the drive
> capacity is smaller than the manufacturer says.

So you are saying that my "12GB" drive is 12,000,000,000 bytes instead
of 12,884,901,888 bytes?  

The drive in the notebook I am typing on now seems to be neither.  If
I am doing arithmetic and reading hdparm output right, I think it is
12,072,517,632 bytes (smaller once formatted).  Not a very round
decimal number.

My point was that big round decimal numbers are rare in computers, so
why do we suddenly need big round decimal units for talking about
computers?

Disk drives have inherently binary capacities, the only reason to
quote their capacities in decimal was to make them look bigger.  I
don't see why we should have new units to make that easier.  This is
particularly ironic when disk manufacturers are so good at making them
bigger at a pace that has seriously out-paced Moore's Law.


-kb

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Mike Harrold writes:

>>> Yeah, no shit? The first time I buy 512MB of RAM and get 512000 KB
>>> (aka 512000000 bytes) I am gonna be *PISSED*
>>
>> Have a work with your hard disk manufacturer then
>
> That isn't quite so important. My kernel isn't likely to f*ck up when
> a 40GB HD = 40,000,000,000. I'm sure it will die quite painfully with
> RAM chips that are not powers of 2.

You'd be buying 537 MB of RAM, not 512 MB of RAM. I expect that
we will see this soon, since a binary GB has a 7% error.
(For kB the error was only 2.4%, which didn't matter so much.)

I would be selling RAM this way. It's stupid to do otherwise.
Consumers will prefer the bigger numbers.

Prefixes need to align with our number system. Unfortunately we
don't use something sane like hex. We use decimal, which is as
bad as base-9 or base-14. Oh well. Historical reasons you know,
and computers aren't bit-wise addressable either. We live with
this brokenness and can't afford to fix it all. So we might as
well use a notation, the base-10 prefixes, that is consistent
with our cummy number system.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[RaúlNúñez de Arenas Coronado]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 517 bytes --]

    Hi all :))

>You are close - he uses "MiB" as short for "mebi" - Mega-binary.

    Personally I don't like very much the abbreviations, but I must
recognize that they remove all possible ambiguity for the
Configure.help. With MiB, GiB, etc... you're completely sure that you
are talking about 2^20, 2^30 and not 10^6, 10^9, etc...

    So I think that is a good idea in general to use that
abbreviations for the binary units. Moreover, it's official and
correct use. Eric made a sensible decision here.

    Raúl

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Jamie Lokier]

RaúlNúñez de Arenas Coronado wrote:
> >You are close - he uses "MiB" as short for "mebi" - Mega-binary.
> 
>     Personally I don't like very much the abbreviations, but I must
> recognize that they remove all possible ambiguity for the
> Configure.help. With MiB, GiB, etc... you're completely sure that you
> are talking about 2^20, 2^30 and not 10^6, 10^9, etc...

Hah!  Everytime I have seen "MiB" before this thread I'd though it meant
"Million Bytes", because everyone knows that MB in computers is a
megabyte (<ahem>).

Actually I think I have only ever seen MiB and GiB in the context of
disk drives before now.

-- Jamie

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 20 December 2001 04:41 pm, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> RaúlNúñez de Arenas Coronado wrote:
> > >You are close - he uses "MiB" as short for "mebi" - Mega-binary.
> >
> >     Personally I don't like very much the abbreviations, but I must
> > recognize that they remove all possible ambiguity for the
> > Configure.help. With MiB, GiB, etc... you're completely sure that you
> > are talking about 2^20, 2^30 and not 10^6, 10^9, etc...
>
> Hah!  Everytime I have seen "MiB" before this thread I'd though it meant
> "Million Bytes", because everyone knows that MB in computers is a
> megabyte (<ahem>).

Me, I've got the "men in black" song running through my head now.  And I 
don't particularly like it, either.

This reminds me of people going after metric speed limit signs with shotguns 
back in the late 70's.  I never understood this impulse before now.

Trust the ISO to change the BINARY nomenclature on something that has, until 
now, DEFAULTED to binary.  I get the feeling nobody at the ISO actually uses 
computers much.  Is it too late to sober them up?

Rob

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Christian Groessler]

On 12/21/2001 10:58:30 AM GMT Mike Jagdis wrote:
>
>Mike Eldridge wrote:
>
>> i was going to comment about simply using lowercase equivalents, but
>> then milli already has 'm', although the concept of a millibyte (or even
>> millibit) is absurd.
>
>Why? For instance a millibyte/s might be a hearbeat across a LAN every
>hour or so or it might be a control traffic requirement for a deep space
>probe. You might not have an immediate use for the term but it has a
>specific meaning - and certainly isn't "absurd" (see definition on
>http://www.dict.org).

So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)

regards,
chris

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Rene Engelhard]

 Christian Groessler wrote:

> On 12/21/2001 10:58:30 AM GMT Mike Jagdis wrote:
>> 
>> Mike Eldridge wrote:
>> 
>>> i was going to comment about simply using lowercase equivalents, but
>>> then milli already has 'm', although the concept of a millibyte (or even
>>> millibit) is absurd.
>> 
>> Why? For instance a millibyte/s might be a hearbeat across a LAN every
>> hour or so or it might be a control traffic requirement for a deep space
>> probe. You might not have an immediate use for the term but it has a
>> specific meaning - and certainly isn't "absurd" (see definition on
>> http://www.dict.org).
> 
> So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)

1/1024. Because we are talking about byte.

Rene

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Reid Hekman]

On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 06:50, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> >> Why? For instance a millibyte/s might be a hearbeat across a LAN every
> >> hour or so or it might be a control traffic requirement for a deep space
> >> probe. You might not have an immediate use for the term but it has a
> >> specific meaning - and certainly isn't "absurd" (see definition on
> >> http://www.dict.org).
> > 
> > So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)
> 
> 1/1024. Because we are talking about byte.

What does bytes have to do with anything? Is it 
1/(2^3 * 10^7) or 1/(2^3 * 2^7)? We're talking about expressing a number
of "bytes"; terms of the base number system don't have any bearing --
and that's the problem. RAM and addressing are restricted to expressions
in terms of binary numbers, as in 2^10, 2^20, etc. Hard drive
manufacturers feel it's neccessary to express storage in terms of base
10 numbers of bytes, even though a sector is 2^9 bytes. In networking,
absolute numbers of bits on the wire are whats important. Though for
some reason telecom engineers have pinned megabit as 1,024,000 bits.
Experienced CS people can glean the proper definition from context, but
the terms should really lend themselves to accurate definition all the
time. If I just say off the cuff that I'm going to send you a megabyte
of data, do I mean 1,000,000 bytes, 1,048,576 bytes, or 1,024,000 bytes?
With the new measures those would be a megabyte, a mebibyte, and 1,024
kilobytes respectively.

Personally I feel that "kibibyte(KiB)" and "mebibyte(MiB)" are silly,
but they are technically unambiguous.

Regards,
Reid
--
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can
fail; without it nothing can succeed." -- Abraham Lincoln



> 
> Rene

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Rene Engelhard]

Reid Hekman wrote:

> On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 06:50, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>>>> Why? For instance a millibyte/s might be a hearbeat across a LAN every
>>>> hour or so or it might be a control traffic requirement for a deep space
>>>> probe. You might not have an immediate use for the term but it has a
>>>> specific meaning - and certainly isn't "absurd" (see definition on
>>>> http://www.dict.org).
>>> 
>>> So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)
>> 
>> 1/1024. Because we are talking about byte.
> 
> What does bytes have to do with anything? Is it
> 1/(2^3 * 10^7) or 1/(2^3 * 2^7)? We're talking about expressing a number
> of "bytes"; terms of the base number system don't have any bearing --
> and that's the problem. RAM and addressing are restricted to expressions

Right.

8 Bit = 1 Byte
1024 Byte = 1 KB
1024 KB = 1 MB
1024 MB ...

So we are talking about that, beacuse the X-Byte is defined as 1024 and not
as 1000 of the previous step.

> in terms of binary numbers, as in 2^10, 2^20, etc. Hard drive
> manufacturers feel it's neccessary to express storage in terms of base
> 10 numbers of bytes, even though a sector is 2^9 bytes. In networking,
> absolute numbers of bits on the wire are whats important. Though for
> some reason telecom engineers have pinned megabit as 1,024,000 bits.
> Experienced CS people can glean the proper definition from context, but
> the terms should really lend themselves to accurate definition all the
> time. If I just say off the cuff that I'm going to send you a megabyte
> of data, do I mean 1,000,000 bytes, 1,048,576 bytes, or 1,024,000 bytes?

What _you_ mean can not be determied from me.
But *I* would mean 1.048.574, otherwise I would say the 9xxx number or say
nearly 1 MB.

> With the new measures those would be a megabyte, a mebibyte, and 1,024
> kilobytes respectively.

That's the sense of them.
 
Rene

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Riley Williams]

Hi Rene.

>> If I just say off the cuff that I'm going to send you a megabyte of
>> data, do I mean 1,000,000 bytes, 1,048,576 bytes, or 1,024,000
>> bytes?

> What _you_ mean can not be determied from me. But *I* would mean
> 1.048.574, otherwise I would say the 9xxx number or say nearly 1 MB.

You obviously give short change as a matter of course then...

(Assuming that you use . as a thousands separator rather than as a
decimal point the way most of the Enlish speaking world does)

Best wishes from Riley.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Mike Jagdis]

Rene Engelhard wrote:

>  Christian Groessler wrote:
>>So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)
>>
> 
> 1/1024. Because we are talking about byte.

Bollocks. How can I put this politely? Don't anyone ever send me
a CV unless you know the technical basics!

Go look up "SI binary prefix" and "SI prefix" on Google. You might
not _like_ the binary prefixes (I don't either) but they're what's
been standardized and they're unambiguous. It does no good to claim
that it's enough that *you* know what you mean. This isn't Alice in
Wonderland (you can look that reference up in your spare time :-) ).

				Mike

P.S. After you've understood the SI system you should be able to
tell us what the binary prefix equivalent for m is and why K as
a prefix is a mark of stupidity...

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Rene Engelhard]

 Mike Jagdis wrote:

> Rene Engelhard wrote:
> 
>> Christian Groessler wrote:
>>> So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)
>>> 
>> 
>> 1/1024. Because we are talking about byte.
> 
> Bollocks. How can I put this politely? Don't anyone ever send me
> a CV unless you know the technical basics!

OK, I answered to fast, not reading the mails correct and without
concentration
Surely, millibytes does not make any sense...
 
> Go look up "SI binary prefix" and "SI prefix" on Google. You might
> not _like_ the binary prefixes (I don't either) but they're what's
> been standardized and they're unambiguous. It does no good to claim
> that it's enough that *you* know what you mean. This isn't Alice in
> Wonderland (you can look that reference up in your spare time :-) ).

A long time ago the MB was under computer scientiests defined as 1024 KB ans
we had used it it one or two decades. Then the hardware manufactures started
to call 1 MB = 1000 MB and that's shit.

I know this problem, I also know the problem, that is gonna be confusing.
I do not insist to change it but I think it is better to make clear what is
defined as 1000 or 1024 insted using MB for both.
  
> P.S. After you've understood the SI system you should be able to
> tell us what the binary prefix equivalent for m is and why K as
> a prefix is a mark of stupidity...

Have I said that?

Then I apopolgize. Otherwise I read the mail I replied not as careful as I
should and I talked at this moment whitch someone so I was not as
concentraded as I had to...

Rene

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Bob Glamm]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:48:22PM +0000, Mike Jagdis wrote:
> Rene Engelhard wrote:
> 
> >  Christian Groessler wrote:
> >>So, is it 1/1024 or 1/1000 bytes ?  :-)
> >>
> > 
> > 1/1024. Because we are talking about byte.
> 
> Bollocks. How can I put this politely? Don't anyone ever send me
> a CV unless you know the technical basics!

The IEC has adopted these units, not SI.  And you could argue that
the IEC has gotten it completely wrong.

Basic unit of length:      1 m
Basic unit of weight:      1 g
...
Basic unit of information: 1 *bit*

Not a byte.  A byte is 8 basic units of information.

To be consistent (as with SI), all prefixes should be applied to
the basic unit of measurement - in this case, a bit.  And one
kilobit == 1000 bits; one megabit == 1 million bits.

Saying "kilobyte" is like saying "micromicrofarad" or "megakilometer".

However, you *could* also argue that the IEC has it correct.  IIRC,
physicists researching electrostatics/magnetostatics at least used to use
(and maybe still do) the centimeter/gram/second units - e.g. an abcoulomb,
which ends up being 10 coulombs.  For whatever reason, convention among
this group of people means using cgs units.  For whatever reason,
convention among computer people is to use units of 8 bits - 1 byte -
as a measurement standard.

> Go look up "SI binary prefix" and "SI prefix" on Google. You might
> not _like_ the binary prefixes (I don't either) but they're what's
> been standardized and they're unambiguous. It does no good to claim
> that it's enough that *you* know what you mean. This isn't Alice in
> Wonderland (you can look that reference up in your spare time :-) ).

SI standards have been around for years.  Yet many mechanical
engineers in the US still use English units.  Convention and
economics dictate that they do so; any change in this field is quite
slow.

Somehow I expect that the same convention and economics factors will
also dominate the argument over prefixes for bits of information
in this field for years to come as well.

-Bob

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Andreas Ferber]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:43:40AM -0600, Bob Glamm wrote:

> Basic unit of weight:      1 g

Actually the base unit of mass is 1 kg, which relates to history.
See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Andreas
-- 
       Andreas Ferber - dev/consulting GmbH - Bielefeld, FRG
     ---------------------------------------------------------
         +49 521 1365800 - af@devcon.net - www.devcon.net

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Per Jessen]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:43:40 -0600, Bob Glamm wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:48:22PM +0000, Mike Jagdis wrote:
[snip]
>> Go look up "SI binary prefix" and "SI prefix" on Google. You might
>> not _like_ the binary prefixes (I don't either) but they're what's
>> been standardized and they're unambiguous. It does no good to claim
>> that it's enough that *you* know what you mean. This isn't Alice in
>> Wonderland (you can look that reference up in your spare time :-) ).
>
>SI standards have been around for years.  Yet many mechanical
>engineers in the US still use English units.  Convention and
>economics dictate that they do so; any change in this field is quite
>slow.

Did the US ever go metric ? Europe (minus the UK of course) did, and rarely
looked back. AFAIK (please correct me), the US never went metric. Don't they
still use Fahrenheit and all that weird stuff ?
Oh, and btw - those non-metric units are not "English units", but "Imperial units", 
if you want to picky :-) 

>
>Somehow I expect that the same convention and economics factors will
>also dominate the argument over prefixes for bits of information
>in this field for years to come as well.

That I agree with - although I suspect manufacturers increasing will go for
the IEC standards - I used to work for StorageTek where an argument just like
this went on about 2 years ago - the IEC side won. Generally the hardware
people were all for IEC, and the software side less so.


rgds,
Per Jessen, Zurich

regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.

Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Friday 21 December 2001 13:55, Per Jessen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:43:40 -0600, Bob Glamm wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:48:22PM +0000, Mike Jagdis wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Go look up "SI binary prefix" and "SI prefix" on Google. You might
> >> not _like_ the binary prefixes (I don't either) but they're what's
> >> been standardized and they're unambiguous. It does no good to claim
> >> that it's enough that *you* know what you mean. This isn't Alice in
> >> Wonderland (you can look that reference up in your spare time :-) ).
> >
> >SI standards have been around for years.  Yet many mechanical
> >engineers in the US still use English units.  Convention and
> >economics dictate that they do so; any change in this field is quite
> >slow.
>
> Did the US ever go metric ? Europe (minus the UK of course) did, and rarely
> looked back. AFAIK (please correct me), the US never went metric. Don't
> they still use Fahrenheit and all that weird stuff ?
> Oh, and btw - those non-metric units are not "English units", but "Imperial
> units", if you want to picky :-)
>

No, the US never went metric.  That's why $200M Mars probes crash on
entry due to some idiot using English units as opposed to the NASA standard
of Metrics.  The funny thing is that Thomas Jefferson, an American President,
suggested the Metric system to the French while he was ambassador there.


> >Somehow I expect that the same convention and economics factors will
> >also dominate the argument over prefixes for bits of information
> >in this field for years to come as well.
>
> That I agree with - although I suspect manufacturers increasing will go for
> the IEC standards - I used to work for StorageTek where an argument just
> like this went on about 2 years ago - the IEC side won. Generally the
> hardware people were all for IEC, and the software side less so.
>
>
> rgds,
> Per Jessen, Zurich
>
> regards,
> Per Jessen, Zurich
> http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.
>
> Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <200112220152.fBM1qJSr022347@svr3.applink.net>
By author:    Timothy Covell <timothy.covell@ashavan.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> No, the US never went metric.  That's why $200M Mars probes crash on
> entry due to some idiot using English units as opposed to the NASA standard
> of Metrics.  The funny thing is that Thomas Jefferson, an American President,
> suggested the Metric system to the French while he was ambassador there.
> 

Ewhat?!

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Friday 21 December 2001 22:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <200112220152.fBM1qJSr022347@svr3.applink.net>
> By author:    Timothy Covell <timothy.covell@ashavan.org>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > No, the US never went metric.  That's why $200M Mars probes crash on
> > entry due to some idiot using English units as opposed to the NASA
> > standard of Metrics.  The funny thing is that Thomas Jefferson, an
> > American President, suggested the Metric system to the French while he
> > was ambassador there.
>
> Ewhat?!
>
> 	-hpa

I'm assuming that you're questioning Jefferson's role.   Here are a couple of
quotations which show that Jefferson's idea predated the official 
implemenation.    I can do more digging if need be.

1791 - "Jefferson Report." Thomas Jefferson described England's weight and 
measures standards to Congress "on the supposition that the present measures 
are to be retained," and also outlined a decimal system of weights and 
measures of Jefferson's conception.

And:

As the scientists were experimenting in their laboratories, practical 
tradesmen were making themselves permanent standards. In 1793, during 
Napoleon's time, the French government adopted a new system of standards 
called the metric system, based on what they called the metre.


-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Alan Cox]

> > of Metrics.  The funny thing is that Thomas Jefferson, an American President,
> > suggested the Metric system to the French while he was ambassador there.
>
>> Ewhat?!

Must be a new disney movie...

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Saturday 22 December 2001 01:57, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > of Metrics.  The funny thing is that Thomas Jefferson, an American
> > > President, suggested the Metric system to the French while he was
> > > ambassador there.
> >>
> >> Ewhat?!
>
> Must be a new disney movie...

OK.  I guess that this seems like an "Al Gore Invented the Internet" thing
except that the system that he proposed was of his own invention (if not
the idea of basing it on ten.) 

The facts are that a number of people in the scientific community had talked 
about these things off and on for centuries.  Thomas Jefferson is the first 
recorded government official known to have made an official recommendation 
for its use (again of his own derivation.)  Alas, the US government was not 
feeling _that_ brave yet, so they decided on an slightly altered system of 
Imperial units.   

As well all know, the French were fealing quite pissed off at everything
that had ever existed prior to 1789.  In 1791, a very much living Louis XVI 
summoned a commision to study changing the system of weights and measures.  
It was during the Reign of Terror that they started making Guillotines based 
on their newly fangled metre.   Now, did Louis die of a new fangled 
Guillotine?  My French history fails me here.


This thread has become  horribly off-topic.....


-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Derek Fawcus]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:22:54PM -0600, Timothy Covell wrote:
> 
> Alas, the US government was not feeling _that_ brave yet, so they decided
> on an slightly altered system of Imperial units.   

You mean having the wrong number of fluid ounces in a pint was intentional?

DF

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Friday 21 December 2001 13:55, Per Jessen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:43:40 -0600, Bob Glamm wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:48:22PM +0000, Mike Jagdis wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
[snip]
> looked back. AFAIK (please correct me), the US never went metric. Don't
> they still use Fahrenheit and all that weird stuff ?
> Oh, and btw - those non-metric units are not "English units", but "Imperial
> units", if you want to picky :-)


As concerns the use of Traditional Units being weird, I would say that the
motivation made a lot of since.   The units were based on commonly
available natural units of measure, eg.

one inch = 1 thumb = 1 pouce 
one foot  = size of a foot = 1 pied 

Also, as is very appropriate to this discussion, the English Units
made use of powers of two and three. Eg.  

1 inch, 1/2 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/8 inch

3 feet equals a yard.

So, the English units were more attuned to nature.  The only thing
natural about base ten is that the majority of us have 10 fingers and
10 toes.

Finally, Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more convenient
divisions: Eg.

10-20 is downright frigid
20-30 degrees is Freezing!
30-40 is very cold
40-50 is cold
50-60 is blustery
60-70 is brisk
70-80 is confortable
80-90 is warm
90-100 is very hot
100+ is Texas in summertime, WAY too hot !!!  ;-)


Finally, for those in Switzerland:

1. Why is it CH when only 30% speak French

2.  The French think that "octante" for 80 and "nanante" for 90
is downright goofy.


-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <200112220214.fBM2EsSr022402@svr3.applink.net>
By author:    Timothy Covell <timothy.covell@ashavan.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> So, the English units were more attuned to nature.  The only thing
> natural about base ten is that the majority of us have 10 fingers and
> 10 toes.
> 

And all of us count that way.  Oh yes, the English unit is *so*
attuned to nature... this is why we have different measures for dry
volume, wet volume... avoirdupois versus troy weight... oh yes, energy
is measures in BTUs and power in horsepower... what is the conversion
factor between them (it has the dimension of time?)

> Finally, Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more convenient
> divisions: Eg.

Bullsh*t.  They seem more natural to you because you're more used to
them.  Anyone who hasn't grown up on the system think that Fahrenheit
is the ultimate in lunacy.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

On 21 Dec 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> > Finally, Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more convenient
> > divisions: Eg.
>
> Bullsh*t.  They seem more natural to you because you're more used to
> them.  Anyone who hasn't grown up on the system think that Fahrenheit
> is the ultimate in lunacy.

Fahrenheit units were developed by a different process than Celsius, but
they are both "natural". The Celsius scale is 0 = freezing point of
water and 100 = boiling point of water. The Fahrenheit scale was
developed less precisely -- 0 is approximately the freezing point of
human blood, IIRC, and 100 is approximately body temperature (Fahrenheit
may have had a fever :)).
--
znmeb@borasky-research.net
http://www.meta-trading-coach.com

How do you get an elephant out of a theatre?
You can't; it's in their blood!

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Ryan Cumming]

On December 21, 2001 18:11, Timothy Covell wrote:
> As concerns the use of Traditional Units being weird, I would say that the
> motivation made a lot of since.   The units were based on commonly
> available natural units of measure, eg.
>
> one inch = 1 thumb = 1 pouce
> one foot  = size of a foot = 1 pied
Oh, and things like having 0 degrees being the temperature of -frozen water- 
isn't really that natural... no, we'd be much better off using averagish 
sizes of human body parts as a reference.

> Also, as is very appropriate to this discussion, the English Units
> made use of powers of two and three. Eg.
>
> 1 inch, 1/2 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/8 inch
Oh, that's right, only users of the Imperial system can use these new-fangled 
"fractions". If only someone would invent a 1/4 centimeter, the metric system 
would be a viable replacement!

How about this: Seeing there is no commonly used unit smaller than an inch, 
people had to resort to using fractions of an inch to describe sizes. It 
works in metric too, but people just don't, because there are a wider range 
of metric units.

> 3 feet equals a yard.
>
> So, the English units were more attuned to nature.  The only thing
> natural about base ten is that the majority of us have 10 fingers and
> 10 toes.
Yes, and three is a magical number decreed by God himself. You do have a good 
point, though, the Imperial system fits in quite well with our 
base-two-but-sometimes-three number system.

> Finally, Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more convenient
> divisions: Eg.
Brilliant. The system with the smallest units wins. Let me introduce you to 
the yocto-centigrade, where the boiling point is 10^26 degrees. Combined with 
the revolutionary new "decimal point", you can obtain never before seen 
precision in describing temperatures! 

-Ryan

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Friday 21 December 2001 23:29, Ryan Cumming wrote:
> On December 21, 2001 18:11, Timothy Covell wrote:
> > As concerns the use of Traditional Units being weird, I would say that
> > the motivation made a lot of since.   The units were based on commonly
> > available natural units of measure, eg.
> >
> > one inch = 1 thumb = 1 pouce
> > one foot  = size of a foot = 1 pied
>
> Oh, and things like having 0 degrees being the temperature of -frozen
> water- isn't really that natural... no, we'd be much better off using
> averagish sizes of human body parts as a reference.

Well, certainly makes more sense when you consider how hard
it is to make ice at intellectual centers like Alexandria and Cordoba.
I suppose that if you lived in Iceland, then you'd have a ready
reference. ;-)

>
> > Also, as is very appropriate to this discussion, the English Units
> > made use of powers of two and three. Eg.
> >
> > 1 inch, 1/2 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/8 inch
>
> Oh, that's right, only users of the Imperial system can use these
> new-fangled "fractions". If only someone would invent a 1/4 centimeter, the
> metric system would be a viable replacement!

Ha.  The point is that it's easy to halve and quarter something while it's
much harder to one tenth something.  

>
> How about this: Seeing there is no commonly used unit smaller than an inch,
> people had to resort to using fractions of an inch to describe sizes. It
> works in metric too, but people just don't, because there are a wider range
> of metric units.
>
> > 3 feet equals a yard.
> >
> > So, the English units were more attuned to nature.  The only thing
> > natural about base ten is that the majority of us have 10 fingers and
> > 10 toes.
>
> Yes, and three is a magical number decreed by God himself. You do have a
> good point, though, the Imperial system fits in quite well with our
> base-two-but-sometimes-three number system.
>

I don't recall that God ever made any special mention of three, but he
did mention seven.

> > Finally, Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more convenient
> > divisions: Eg.
>
> Brilliant. The system with the smallest units wins. Let me introduce you to
> the yocto-centigrade, where the boiling point is 10^26 degrees. Combined
> with the revolutionary new "decimal point", you can obtain never before
> seen precision in describing temperatures!

My point is that HUMANS cannot accurately measure temperature, so it
makes more sense to use a fuzzier system.   Unless you are an android
with a 555 timer chip embedded in brain, you are a "fuzzy" thinker on
things which are continuous in nature.

But then again, I suppose that we should legislate exact frequencies
of light so that no one can make any mistake as concerns what is
yellow and what is lemon-chiffon.  And if your eyes are test and
are found to be out of spec, you'll be subjected to psychotherapy
sessions because you obviously have personnal issues which
are preventing you from seeing colour properly. ;-)

Look, just so that you all understand, I'm pro metrics.  I'm just
saying that they were not all totally crazy.   It's not like before
1790 all the people who had ever lived were morons.   Indeed,
after further reading, I found that Jefferson rejected the French
version of the Metric system because he though that their
measurements were not accurate enough (and less accurate
than many Greek and Egyptian mathematicians had made
millenia before.)

>
> -Ryan
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in?Configure.help.

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 09:29:00PM -0800, Ryan Cumming wrote:

> > So, the English units were more attuned to nature.  The only thing
> > natural about base ten is that the majority of us have 10 fingers and
> > 10 toes.

> Yes, and three is a magical number decreed by God himself. You do have a good 
> point, though, the Imperial system fits in quite well with our 
> base-two-but-sometimes-three number system.

Actually, you're not far from the truth here. The best system (makes for
least numbers of weights you need to make for weighing, etc, etc) is
base e (2.7182...), which is best approximated by base two sometimes
three ...

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in?Configure.help.

[Pekka Pietikäinen]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 08:11:11PM -0600, Timothy Covell wrote:
> 
> Finally, Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more convenient
> divisions: Eg.
> 
> 10-20 is downright frigid
> 20-30 degrees is Freezing!
> 30-40 is very cold
> 40-50 is cold
> 50-60 is blustery
> 60-70 is brisk
> 70-80 is confortable
> 80-90 is warm
> 90-100 is very hot
> 100+ is Texas in summertime, WAY too hot !!!  ;-)
> 
Blah, Celsius is obviously more natural:

-50	Ok, this is what I'd call _REALLY_ cold
-40	With proper gear it's survivable but not much fun
-30	Time to put on a fur hat
-20	Long underwear is a good idea
-15	Nice winter day
-10	Slightly warm winter day
-5	Nice warm winter day
0	Slippery as hell outside, beware!
5	Cool summer day
10	Slightly cool summer day
15	Nice summer day
20	Very nice summer day
30	Better apply some sunscreen/take some water with you when going outside
40	With sunblock & lots of water it's survivable but not much fun
50	WAY too hot!!!
-- 
Pekka Pietikainen

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Stuart Lynne]

> If you would pay more attention, you can see that on most drives there is
> a small note that says: 1MB = 1000000 bytes. This is why the drive
> capacity is smaller than the manufacturer says.


http://www.seagate.com/products/discsales/discselect/A1a2.html#cap

    Capacity:
    Capacity is the amount of data that the drive can store, after
    formatting. Most disc drive companies, including Seagate, calculate disc
    capacity based on the assumption that 1 megabyte = 1000 kilobytes and 1
    gigabyte=1000 megabytes.


Disks have a natural measurement of capacity based on an integral number
of 512byte blocks. So kilobytes (1024) makes sense for them. 

The only marketing wizardry is to use the smaller of:

	1 megabyte = 1000 kilobytes

instead of:

	1 megabyte = 1024 kilobytes

There are valid arguements for both interpretations. 

-- 
                                            __O 
Lineo - For Embedded Linux Solutions      _-\<,_ 
PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00 (_)/ (_) 88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68
Stuart Lynne <sl@fireplug.net>         www.lineo.com         604-461-7532

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Thomas Hood]

Timothy Covell wrote:

> one inch = 1 thumb = 1 pouce 

Unfortunately that was not the case, since each country
had its own standards of measurement.  It wasn't even
true that "1 inch = 1 inch", let alone "1 pint = 1 pint".

> So, the English units were more attuned to nature.

It's true that in some applications units that are divided
in half, rather than in ten, are more convenient.  
Carpentry is one example.

> Farhenheit units are smaller so that they make more
> convenient divisions

That's a matter of familiarity.  Can you even tell the
difference between 65 degrees and 66 degrees?

> Why is it CH when only 30% speak French

I dunno.  But CH abbreviates "Confoederatio Helvetica" which is,
I believe, Latin.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[matthew david reuther]

This is drifting off topic, but...

0 degrees Fahrenheit is the freezing point of salt-water, though I don't
recall offhand what solution

100 degrees Fahrenheit is the rectal temperature of a cow

I guess the reason these feel more "natural" to some people, is because
they relate to our bodies, just like the inch, foot, hand, and cubit. It
still doesn't explain things like pounds, but that's probably related to
agriculture somehow.

At any rate, the US allows people to continue to work in thing like pounds
and ounces (wet and dry) because it is the standard for their trade. They
put the metric equivalent on the package in paentheses, but it's "soft"
metric, not "hard" metric (which would be nice round numbers).

Anyway, I think the switch is a good idea, but some education is in order.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, matthew david reuther wrote:

> I guess the reason these feel more "natural" to some people, is because
> they relate to our bodies, just like the inch, foot, hand, and cubit. It
> still doesn't explain things like pounds, but that's probably related to
> agriculture somehow.

a pound is the weight of one pint of water (one gallon = 7.8 lbs, roughly)
there are two pints in a quart, and four quarts to a gallon. therefore, a 
pint is 1/8 gallon, and very close to one pound.

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Per Jessen]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:18:08 +0100 (MET), Pozsar Balazs wrote:
>
>This might be a standard, but _it_is_not_adopted_anywhere! (at least I
>haven't seen it anywhere (I might be blind)).
>I would rather call standard something which is adopted in real life.

No, that would be a socalled defacto standard. Ie. not necessarily a standard 
proposed and recommended by a standards body. For instance, you may think that 
the UK using pounds and ounces is standard - after all they are both being 
used in real life. But it is contrary to the standard. (as given by the SI
system).


rgds,
Per 

regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.

Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Nicholas Knight]

On Saturday 22 December 2001 03:22 pm, Per Jessen wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:18:08 +0100 (MET), Pozsar Balazs wrote:
> >This might be a standard, but _it_is_not_adopted_anywhere! (at least
> > I haven't seen it anywhere (I might be blind)).
> >I would rather call standard something which is adopted in real
> > life.
>
> No, that would be a socalled defacto standard. Ie. not necessarily a
> standard proposed and recommended by a standards body. For instance,
> you may think that the UK using pounds and ounces is standard - after
> all they are both being used in real life. But it is contrary to the
> standard. (as given by the SI system).

Not anymore. Apparently it is now illiegal in the UK to use Imperial 
measurements (or for that matter, anything but standard metric) in 
transactions. If people are still using the Imperial system in day to 
day life, they won't be very soon (and yes, this has infact been 
enforced at least once that I've heard of.)

I just eagerly await the day that the U.S. government decides to stick 
its ass in and tell U.S. citizens (and whatever other countries they 
decide to pressure into agreeing with them) what we can and can't use 
to abbreviate 1024bytes, since we're all too busy arguing over wether 
or not to abide by the defacto standard that has been in use longer 
than I've been ALIVE (which yes, means I've not been alive very long.)

Let me know when we're done fighting about wether or not we should 
confuse everyone (further) that tries to configure their first kernel.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Alan Cox]

> Not anymore. Apparently it is now illiegal in the UK to use Imperial 
> measurements (or for that matter, anything but standard metric) in 
> transactions. If people are still using the Imperial system in day to 

Half accurate

Over time we are gradually shifting more and more to metric units. Its slow
because the only fair way to let elderly people who don't know metric handle
things has been to wait until they pass on. 

Weights and measures have gone from imperial, through imperial and metric
now to metric values. We still have people selling 454g bags in part
because of the time it takes them to change sizes.

Other areas - alcoholic drink sizes, road distances and road speeds have yet
to be changed, but eventually will be.

Alan

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Per Jessen]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:21:11 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>On Saturday 22 December 2001 03:22 pm, Per Jessen wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:18:08 +0100 (MET), Pozsar Balazs wrote:
>> >This might be a standard, but _it_is_not_adopted_anywhere! (at least
>> > I haven't seen it anywhere (I might be blind)).
>> >I would rather call standard something which is adopted in real
>> > life.
>>
>> No, that would be a socalled defacto standard. Ie. not necessarily a
>> standard proposed and recommended by a standards body. For instance,
>> you may think that the UK using pounds and ounces is standard - after
>> all they are both being used in real life. But it is contrary to the
>> standard. (as given by the SI system).
>
>Not anymore. Apparently it is now illiegal in the UK to use Imperial 
>measurements (or for that matter, anything but standard metric) in 
>transactions. If people are still using the Imperial system in day to 
>day life, they won't be very soon (and yes, this has infact been 
>enforced at least once that I've heard of.)

Yeah, I know of those too. I lived in London when that case with the greengrocer 
or butcher or whatever was on. I think the guy was prosecuted.
That case was partially about the metric system, partially about EU legislation.
The UK government had agreed that by a certain date, all supermarkets etc.
would be required by law to mark all goods with a per 100g price. Not per ounce
or whatever. 
This is of course caused a few people to whine ....
And soon AFAIR, at least one supermarket turned around, and stopped also marking
goods in price per ounce etc. Downright silly.

>
>Let me know when we're done fighting about wether or not we should 
>confuse everyone (further) that tries to configure their first kernel.

Sooner or later, the IEC notation will also make it into the schools, and students
will be graduating knowing nothing but the IEC notation. If we haven't changed by 
then, that's when we'll see some true confusion.


/Per Jessen, Zurich.

regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.

Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Stephen Satchell]

At 10:18 AM 12/23/01 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>Sooner or later, the IEC notation will also make it into the schools, and 
>students
>will be graduating knowing nothing but the IEC notation. If we haven't 
>changed by
>then, that's when we'll see some true confusion.

Or the professors and research assistants will say "no" and that will be 
that.  Don't forget that the IEC doesn't cast things in stone, either -- as 
THEY get feedback from their members, they may decide to shit-can the whole 
thing.

That's another reason to take it slowly -- let's see if the idea has 
serious legs.

Stephen Satchell

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB =?iso-8859-1?q?in Configure=2Ehelp=2E?=

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> And different length for sea and land 'miles'. Very natural...

nautical miles are defined as 1852 meters, the exact length of one second 
of longitude at the equator :)

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[H. Peter Anvin]

Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> 
>>And different length for sea and land 'miles'. Very natural...
>>
> 
> nautical miles are defined as 1852 meters, the exact length of one second 
> of longitude at the equator :)
> 


YM "minute" HTH.


FWIW, from the units database:

nauticalmile            1852 m   # Supposed to be one minute of latitude at
                                 # the equator.  That value is about 1855 m.
                                 # Early estimates of the earth's
circumference
                                 # were a bit off.  The value of 1852 m was
                                 # made the international standard in 1929.
                                 # The US did not accept this value until
                                 # 1954.  The UK switched in 1970.


Of course, the number 21600 is also such a nice round number.

	-hpa

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> YM "minute" HTH.

you're right... I did mean minute ;P

> FWIW, from the units database:
> 
> nauticalmile            1852 m   # Supposed to be one minute of latitude at
>                                  # the equator.  That value is about 1855 m.
>                                  # Early estimates of the earth's
> circumference
>                                  # were a bit off.  The value of 1852 m was
>                                  # made the international standard in 1929.
>                                  # The US did not accept this value until
>                                  # 1954.  The UK switched in 1970.

true, it is off, but for all intents and purposes 1852 is close enough :)

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help.

[Timothy Covell]

On Tuesday 08 January 2002 15:24, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> > And different length for sea and land 'miles'. Very natural...
>
> nautical miles are defined as 1852 meters, the exact length of one second
> of longitude at the equator :)
>
>  Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com
>  Software Engineer
>  Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


And, of course, the etymology of the word "knots" refers to the fact
that before modern spedometers and GPS tools, ships would gauge
their speed by letting a rope freely drag out of the stern of the ship
and would measure the number of equally spaced "knots" in the rope
that had rolled off the ship during the period of one hour.

-- 
timothy.covell@ashavan.org.

Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Nayyer Tiger]

Greetings all,

I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at 
http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in 
electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte 
(MB) to MiB, etc, etc.

Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion 
related to this
change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a 
double take.

Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of 
Configure.help:

@@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
   If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
   more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
   (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
-  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
-  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
+  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
+  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
   space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
   as possible.

Steven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Nayyer Tiger wrote:

| I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at
| http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
| Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
| IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in
| electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
| and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte
| (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
|
| Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion
| related to this
| change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a
| double take.

Either decision will be disliked.  I don't care for the new/standard
abbreviations, but I can get used to them, and I expect that most
people can.

Let's get over it and back to the good stuff.

~Randy

and who are all these anon. people you copied?!?

| Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of
| Configure.help:
|
| @@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
|    If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
|    more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
|    (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
| -  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
| -  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
| +  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
| +  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
|    space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
|    as possible.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Nayyer Tiger wrote:
> 
> | I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at
> | http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
> | Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> | IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in
> | electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> | and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte
> | (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
> |
> | Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion
> | related to this
> | change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a
> | double take.
> 
> Either decision will be disliked.  I don't care for the new/standard
> abbreviations, but I can get used to them, and I expect that most
> people can.
> 
> Let's get over it and back to the good stuff.
> 
> ~Randy
> 

Is it a standard or is it something in-process? The reason I ask is
that neither KB nor KiB can possibly be correct.

According to the standards, where capitalization is used:
	(1) For a proper name.
	(2) To differentiate between otherwise identical symbols.

"KB" would mean:

	Kirchoff-Bell

It needs to be:

	"kb" to mean kilobyte.

In any event, I suggest that whatever exists just be left alone.
Both the present and the proposed changes are incorrect. The
present incorrect symbols are widely used, therefore the intent
is known. The proposed symbols are not widely used and will just
aggravate a sore created by Tech-Writers who can't read or write.

We have seen, in recent years, a continual change in English Language
usage where, what was once considered absolutely wrong, is now considered
correct. For instance double-negatives like "irregardless" are now
even codified by insertion into the dictionary. FYI, it is either
"regardless" or "irrespective". It can't be "irregardless".

So, let's let sleeping dogs lie. Oh yes, contractions are now getting
clobbered too. It is now acceptable to spell "dont" without the
apostrophe! I think Alan had something to do with that.... ;)


Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).

                 Windows-2000/Professional isn't.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Andreas Dilger]

On Mar 18, 2002  11:36 -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> According to the standards, where capitalization is used:
> 	(1) For a proper name.
> 	(2) To differentiate between otherwise identical symbols.
> 
> "KB" would mean:
> 
> 	Kirchoff-Bell
> 
> It needs to be:
> 
> 	"kb" to mean kilobyte.

Argh.  Not this thread again. "kb" is kilo _bits_ not kilo _bytes_.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger  \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
                 \  would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/               -- Dogbert

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Jakob Kemi]

On Monday 18 March 2002 17.36, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Nayyer Tiger wrote:
> > | I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available
> > | at http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
> > | Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> > | IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in
> > | electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> > | and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB,
> > | Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
> > |
> > | Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some
> > | discussion related to this
> > | change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do
> > | a double take.
> >
> > Either decision will be disliked.  I don't care for the new/standard
> > abbreviations, but I can get used to them, and I expect that most
> > people can.
> >
> > Let's get over it and back to the good stuff.
> >
> > ~Randy
>
> Is it a standard or is it something in-process? The reason I ask is
> that neither KB nor KiB can possibly be correct.

KiB is correct, please visit:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

There was a huge thread on this subject in dec '01. If anyone feels like
bringing back this horse please at least read through that thread before
we starting over again.

http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=linux.kernel.1008872772.2777.16.camel%40phantasy.SOMEWHERE&rnum=1


	-- Jakob

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.3.95.1020318112042.740A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>
By author:    "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> Is it a standard or is it something in-process? The reason I ask is
> that neither KB nor KiB can possibly be correct.
> 
> According to the standards, where capitalization is used:
> 	(1) For a proper name.
> 	(2) To differentiate between otherwise identical symbols.
> 

This is obviously untrue for prefixes.  Consider the prefix T (10^12),
which has no lower-case equivalent.

The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.

I don't like the pronunciations used in the new standard, but I think
using Ki, Mi, Gi, ... at least in writing is a good thing, to
disambiguate between binary and decimal powers.  I just read them as
"binary kilobytes" etc if I need to be clear.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Rik van Riel]

On 18 Mar 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.

Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)

Rik
-- 
<insert bitkeeper endorsement here>

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Mike Dresser]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
>
> Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
>
> Rik

Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
somedays.

=)

mike

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> > > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
> >
> > Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
> >
> > Rik
>
> Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> somedays.

I'm not sure what parallel universe you live in, but I'm
pretty damn sure that mine doesn't have 10000 times more
signal than noise on slashdot ;)

An S+N/N of one kB is 40 dB...

regards,

Rik
-- 
<insert bitkeeper endorsement here>

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Chris Friesen]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:

> > Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> > somedays.
> 
> I'm not sure what parallel universe you live in, but I'm
> pretty damn sure that mine doesn't have 10000 times more
> signal than noise on slashdot ;)
> 
> An S+N/N of one kB is 40 dB...

<pedantic>

dB is decibel, kB would be kilobel, so one kB is 10000 dB

a kilobel works out to a signal to noise ratio of 10^1000, which is pretty big,
and definately a bit bigger than the slashdot signal to noise ratio  :)

</pedantic>


-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10  
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Mike Dresser]

> <pedantic>
>
> dB is decibel, kB would be kilobel, so one kB is 10000 dB
>
> a kilobel works out to a signal to noise ratio of 10^1000, which is pretty big,
> and definately a bit bigger than the slashdot signal to noise ratio  :)
>
> </pedantic>
<b><pedantic>
if dB is 10 bel's, wouldn't kB be 1000 bel's, therefore one kB is only 100
deci-bel's?

Creating a S/N ratio of 10^100?

</pedantic></b>

I forget what we were debating now.

mike

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Mike Dresser]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:

> <b><pedantic>
> if dB is 10 bel's, wouldn't kB be 1000 bel's, therefore one kB is only 100
> deci-bel's?
>
> Creating a S/N ratio of 10^100?
>
> </pedantic></b>

No Mike, go back to school!

Deci, not deca!

<dummy>Mike</dummy>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Remco Post]

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> > > > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
> > >
> > > Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
> > >
> > > Rik
> >
> > Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> > somedays.
> 
> I'm not sure what parallel universe you live in, but I'm
> pretty damn sure that mine doesn't have 10000 times more
> signal than noise on slashdot ;)
> 
> An S+N/N of one kB is 40 dB...
> 
> regards,
> 
> Rik
> -- 

changing the d to a k doesn't do anything for the  behaviour Bell scale, it's 
just scaling... :) so 1 kB = 10000 dB...



-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Remco Post

SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam    http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing  Tel. +31 20 592 8008    Fax. +31 20 668 3167

"I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer
industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer industry
didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Steven Cole]

On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 04:31, Nayyer Tiger wrote:
> Greetings all,
> 
> I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at 
> http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
> Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in 
> electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte 
> (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
> 
> Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion 
> related to this
> change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a 
> double take.
> 
> Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of 
> Configure.help:
> 
> @@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
>    If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
>    more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
>    (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
> -  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
> -  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
> +  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
> +  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
>    space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
>    as possible.
> 
> Steven

Hey team,

This is the message I posted just before Christmas last year.  The
following thread was quite long and many good arguments were posted pro
and con.  ESR decided to keep the KiB and MiB in Configure.help after
all was said and done, but then Linus split up an older version (v2.69
IIRC) which did not have these changes, performing a "pocket veto" of
the MB to MiB conversion.  Marcello did not accept any changes from ESR
after v2.69 also, so that whole discussion was made rather moot.

So rather than beating up on this horse which was already buried last
year, I suggest spending time more productively.

Steven

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Pete Cervasio]

At 02:00 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Mike Dresser wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
>> > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
>>
>> Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
>>
>> Rik
>
>Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
>somedays.
>

Your threshold is set too high.  Read at -1 for megabels.  ;)

Best regards,
Pete C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Leaping Tiger kung-fu is no match for my Frightened Piglet style!
------------------------------------------------------------------------