Jump to content



Photo

Another controversial change for Ubuntu 10.04: File size policy


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 Kirkburn

Kirkburn

    Mmm, delicious sanity.

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 06
  • Location: Bristol, UK

Posted 26 March 2010 - 19:51

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.

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....tet_(computing)

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


#62 Syanide

Syanide

    From here to infirmary.

  • 4,202 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03
  • Location: /home

Posted 26 March 2010 - 20:24

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.

#63 roadwarrior

roadwarrior

    Mississippian by birth and by choice

  • 12,944 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 03
  • Location: Republic of Mississippi

Posted 26 March 2010 - 22:14

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


That's why I said it will never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. 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.

#64 ThePitt

ThePitt

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,809 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 06
  • Location: Hell

Posted 26 March 2010 - 22:14

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.

#65 kaffra

kaffra

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 01
  • Location: Deutschland

Posted 26 March 2010 - 23:55

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)?

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.

#66 McoreD

McoreD

    Neowinian

  • 805 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 02

Posted 26 March 2010 - 23:59

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)


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.

#67 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,504 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 28 March 2010 - 12:27

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, 28 March 2010 - 12:32.


#68 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 28 March 2010 - 14:54

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

Yes, I've always found that odd. I guess now with 10.10 we can.

#69 libertas83

libertas83

    Neowinian

  • 780 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 05

Posted 28 March 2010 - 18:34

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.


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.

#70 Kirkburn

Kirkburn

    Mmm, delicious sanity.

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 06
  • Location: Bristol, UK

Posted 28 March 2010 - 20:51

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.

Uh, that's got pretty much nothing to do with what he was saying :)