Jump to content

70 posts in this topic

Posted

[quote name='Kreuger' date='26 March 2010 - 13:09' timestamp='1269608965' post='592397138']
Not something that will largely affect me. Frankly I dont care. With harddrives in the TB range and probably larger coming in the next few years, should we really complain over a few bytes (giga, kilo, mega, whatever)?
[/quote]
It certainly causes a problem when trying to perform any calculations, especially when you get into the TiB/TB range, the difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes!

Disappointingly even Google gets this one wrong: http://www.google.co.uk/#q=MB+in+kB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Growled' date='26 March 2010 - 12:23' timestamp='1269572027' post='592396074']
I doubt if most users will either know or care about this.
[/quote]
I'm sure if you've dealt with people with no computer background (which btw, is what I'd define to be "most users"), you'll know that we are kinda tired being asked the question "Why is my 1TB hard disk only showing 931 jiggabyte? Should I ask for a refund?".

[quote name='Andrew Lyle' date='26 March 2010 - 14:30' timestamp='1269579638' post='592396324']
Why change something after so many years? People need to learn computers work on the base2 structure and not base10.
[/quote]
And all you fighting here need to learn philosophy, and realise that this debate won't achieve anything of use :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Never used 'KiB' ever and never will don't recognise it because a KB is 1024 bytes etc. Base 10 units are an approximation and not a formal unit in themselves - it's purpose is for apples advertising of how many songs, video and picture your ipod can hold. Occasionally sure it can also be used for people guessing sums in their head but that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Digitalx' date='26 March 2010 - 13:39' timestamp='1269610783' post='592397218']
Never used 'KiB' ever and never will don't recognise it because a KB is 1024 bytes etc. Base 10 units are an approximation and not a formal unit in themselves - it's purpose is for apples advertising of how many songs, video and picture your ipod can hold. Occasionally sure it can also be used for people guessing sums in their head but that's it.
[/quote]
Huh? That made little to no sense.

You don't recognise KiB, therefore it's wrong? Base 10 units are an approximation? It's used for sums in your head?


The computer world has misused the 1,000 units system for a while - but just because they've done it for some time, doesn't mean it's right. Kilo means 1000, not 1024. This is why "KiB" was created, meaning 1,024 bytes, so that it could have proper terminology without misusing the metric system. (It has bugger all to do with Apple's advertising. WTF?)

Ideally, all systems should sort out their units, and display them correctly. That way users wouldn't get confused and it doesn't necessarily prevent either one being used. Yes, some re-education might be required ... but it's not like people base their life around whether 1 kilobyte is 1024 or 1000 bytes.


Read me: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnitsPolicy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Kirkburn' date='27 March 2010 - 02:29' timestamp='1269613777' post='592397352']
Huh? That made little to no sense.

You don't recognise KiB, therefore it's wrong? Base 10 units are an approximation? It's used for sums in your head?


The computer world has misused the 1,000 units system for a while - but just because they've done it for some time, doesn't mean it's right. Kilo means 1000, not 1024. This is why "KiB" was created, meaning 1,024 bytes, so that it could have proper terminology without misusing the metric system. (It has bugger all to do with Apple's advertising. WTF?)
[/quote]

Kilo means a thousand, yes. byte is generally considered 8bits so 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm thinking we need to move Shuttleworth back into the front office so he'll stop changing things. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Digitalx' date='26 March 2010 - 14:48' timestamp='1269614911' post='592397416']
Kilo means a thousand, yes. byte is generally considered 8bits so 2³/2*2*2 = 8 = 1B and 2¹⁰ = 1,024 = 1KB. So as it's denoted kilo as the unit prefix 1|xxx with x=byte/bits I never said it was wrong I just don't recognise or use it because the fact is it's an unnecessary term devised for god knows why for something which is as simple as remembering ones tens hundreds thousands in money.

the only differentiation imo necessary is Byte and bit which is simple lower case b = bits B = bytes which is generally accepted.
[/quote]
Regardless of how many bits are in a byte ... 1000 bytes is still 1000 bytes, and thus 8000 bits. Kilo = one thousand. How is 2^10 related to the word "kilo"?

Basically, I still fail to see your point. Kilometer = 1000 metres. Kilogram = 1000 grams. These are absolute standards. Computing is the only one that gets it wrong. I've no idea why you think it's a "unnecessary term". What exactly is unnecessary?

The issue currently is kilo being used for [i]two different things[/i]. This change is about fixing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Kirkburn' date='27 March 2010 - 04:08' timestamp='1269619728' post='592397836']
Regardless of how many bits are in a byte ... 1000 bytes is still 1000 bytes, and 8000 bits. Kilo = one thousand.

Basically, I still fail to see your point. Kilometer = 1000 metres. Kilogram = 1000 grams. These are absolute standards. Computing is the only one that gets it wrong. I've no idea why you think it's a "unnecessary term". What exactly is unnecessary?

The issue currently is kilo being used for [i]two different things[/i]. This change is about fixing that.
[/quote]

Ok i'll make it even more simpler. We all know decimal system and stuff. 1.00 is one dollar because it's in first ones after decimal point. 10.00 is tens because now the 1 is in the tens after the decimal. 100.00 now the 1 is in the hundreds and so on. 103.00 This is One hundred and three as there's 1 hundred and 3 ones in front of the decimal, ok.

Now as you move up in units of base units of 10 you can attach SI prefix's kilo mega giga etc metric units are base 10 so it's common usage with them which is what causes this problem but the point is kilo is 1000 yes as I said a KB is 1024 Bytes [024] which is the Byte section in the name so Kilo-Thousand [indicating thousandth digits] + Byte [2¹⁰] = 1024Bytes = 1KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Digitalx' date='26 March 2010 - 16:27' timestamp='1269620831' post='592397952']
Now as you move up in units of base units of 10 you can attach SI prefix's kilo mega giga etc metric units are base 10 so it's common usage with them which is what causes this problem but the point is kilo is 1000 yes as I said a KB is 1024 Bytes [024] which is the Byte section in the name so Kilo-Thousand [indicating thousandth digits] + Byte [2¹⁰] = 1024Bytes = 1KB
[/quote]
The point is that a [b]kilo[/b]byte is bad terminology for 1024. You can't use it as the basis for your reasoning.

A kilo means one thousand; a thousand bytes is 1000 bytes, not 1024. You're seriously twisting maths to make your thinking work.


If I read you correctly, let's say we have base 3 system using foobars. 3^7 is 2187 foobars. That's the closest we get to 1000 in that system using simple power jumps. So I'm going to define 2187 as a kilofoobar. It doesn't make sense.

Base 2 is just lucky that 1024 lands so close to 1000.

2^20 is 1,048,675 (1 MiB). This is 1024x1024 ... it's still not relating to 1000. The problem just gets worse as you get bigger. 1,073,741,824 (1 GiB) is plainly not a billion of anything.


Basically, a kilobyte should be one thousand bytes. We have a the terminology available to deal with the computing world: a kibibyte. It's not hard to use that instead if needed.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This, like many other issues, will never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. Those who oppose the use of "kilo", "mega", etc. to mean anything other than various multiples of 10 will always bitch about it. Those who have used computers for decades before this change will always bitch about it being changed. Kind of like how I personally think the French are annoying to the rest of the world by insisting on calling a byte an "octet", so they have their own abbreviations - Ko, Mo, Go, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='roadwarrior' date='26 March 2010 - 18:59' timestamp='1269629977' post='592398628']
This, like many other issues, will never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. Those who oppose the use of "kilo", "mega", etc. to mean anything other than various multiples of 10 will always bitch about it. Those who have used computers for decades before this change will always bitch about it being changed. Kind of like how I personally think the French are annoying to the rest of the world by insisting on calling a byte an "octet", so they have their own abbreviations - Ko, Mo, Go, etc.
[/quote]
That can more reasonably be put down to translation differences - it's not changing the definition or anything. It's something used in English anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octet_%28computing%29

Of course it can be resolved, it's just the computing guys will ultimately "lose". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They've reverted the change as of today, because some apps still read it the old way, and it creates confusion. The change will land in 10.10. From omgubuntu.co.uk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Kirkburn' date='26 March 2010 - 14:51' timestamp='1269633060' post='592398798']Of course it can be resolved, it's just the computing guys will ultimately "lose". :)
[/quote]

That's why I said it will never be resolved [b]to the satisfaction of everyone[/b]. Sort of like the demotion of Pluto. There will always be those who continue to call it a planet because that is what they grew up calling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I remember a long time ago, when microsoft try to do this and the whole world was against them... And to be honest I dont know. Its like the imperial vs metrial problem/issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Kreuger' date='26 March 2010 - 14:09' timestamp='1269608965' post='592397138']
Not something that will largely affect me. Frankly I dont care. With harddrives in the TB range and probably larger coming in the next few years, should we really complain over a few bytes (giga, kilo, mega, whatever)?
[/quote]
in a way yes, you wont see much space difference form your old 20GB drive, but in the 1TB drives you are 'losing' around 70GB. As bigger drives come to the market a lot of people are going to wonder what happened to their hundreds of gigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='The_Decryptor' date='26 March 2010 - 00:00' timestamp='1269532832' post='592393428']
Good to see them finally do this, the kernel and most userland tools have been using the proper suffixes for ages.

It also brings it in line with HD makers (who have always done it properly), and helps the end user (having conflicting numbers = bad)
[/quote]

Exactly. Let mega mean million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega-
Confirmed in 1960, it comes from the Greek μέγα.

If you want 1048576 then DON'T call it mega but call it something else = Mebi as IEC suggested.

End of confusion and discussion.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Seeing some of the comments on Slashdot reminded me, that not every computing related subject uses the whole "kilo = 1,024" idea.

Networking for example uses the standard meanings, 1KBps means 1,000 bytes per second, not 1,024 bytes per second.

Isn't that kinda strange, that a network running at 1GBps, can't download "1GB" of data in a second?

Edit: And yet another one I forgot, speed. A 2Ghz CPU doesn't run at 2,147,483,648 Hertz. Edited by The_Decryptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='The_Decryptor' date='28 March 2010 - 07:27' timestamp='1269779260' post='592403870']
Isn't that kinda strange, that a network running at 1GBps, can't download "1GB" of data in a second?
[/quote]
Yes, I've always found that odd. I guess now with 10.10 we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='The_Decryptor' date='28 March 2010 - 08:27' timestamp='1269779260' post='592403870']
Seeing some of the comments on Slashdot reminded me, that not every computing related subject uses the whole "kilo = 1,024" idea.

Networking for example uses the standard meanings, 1KBps means 1,000 bytes per second, not 1,024 bytes per second.

Isn't that kinda strange, that a network running at 1GBps, can't download "1GB" of data in a second?

Edit: And yet another one I forgot, speed. A 2Ghz CPU doesn't run at 2,147,483,648 Hertz.
[/quote]

Your capitalization changes the meaning. Network speeds use 1Gbps which means 1 Giga-bits per seconds. The bit is the lowest unit so 1,000 bits is 1,000 bits. A byte is 8 bits and from then is calculated in Base-2 math. So if you want to convert 1Gbps to 1GBps, you dvide it by 8.

I have never seen this as a major problem for average joes. They simply do not care most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='libertas83' date='28 March 2010 - 18:34' timestamp='1269801276' post='592404974']
Your capitalization changes the meaning. Network speeds use 1Gbps which means 1 Giga-bits per seconds. The bit is the lowest unit so 1,000 bits is 1,000 bits. A byte is 8 bits and from then is calculated in Base-2 math. So if you want to convert 1Gbps to 1GBps, you dvide it by 8.

I have never seen this as a major problem for average joes. They simply do not care most of the time.
[/quote]
Uh, that's got pretty much nothing to do with what he was saying :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.