Another controversial change for Ubuntu 10.04: File size policy

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

A less visible change than the controversial window control arrangement in the Gnome default theme for Ubuntu 10.04 'Lucid Lynx' is that a units policy was put in place, similar to what Apple have done for Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard': File sizes are now displayed in base-10 units. I.e. 1 kB = 1,000 bytes, 1 MB = 1,000 kB = 1,000,000 bytes and so on. Quoth Benjamin Drung, the person who suggested the change:

I stumbled over Ubuntu 10.04 Reads File Sizes Differently and I have to correct some statements.

First I want to ask you, my blog reader, to read the units policy. Then think about it and read it again.

Now my criticism to the blog post:

* We didn?t change the units policy. There were no such policy; we created one.

* KB does not exist (in the SI or IEC standard). It?s either kB (meaning 1000 bytes) or KiB (meaning 1024 bytes). Did the author read the policy?

Now my clarifications to the commenter:

* This policy was not Canonical?s decision. You have to blame me for creating the draft of the policy and the Technical Board for approving it.

* This policy has nothing to do with Apple. I have never used a Mac and I don?t care what kind of byte prefixes Apple uses.

* This policy is not connected to the decision to change the window buttons position of the default theme. This was done by different people. These two things are absolutely independent.

Correcting all applications to comply to the units policy is a goal for lucid+1 (Ubuntu 10.10). We are too late in the release cycle for the change in lucid (Ubuntu 10.04). My current plan is to create a library for inputing/outputting bytes to users. The user can then configure this library to display the units in base-2 (KiB), base-10 (kB), or the historical totally f*****-up format (KB).

Source via Planet Ubuntu

This is potentially a bad thing if all other Linux distributions stick to the old format and will lead to confusion sooner or later. IMHO at least.

[Skyfrog]

I always hated that they wanted to go and change it just because some people got their panties in a twist over the meaning of Kilo. Computers work in binary, not base 10. We've always defined them in digital measurements, and I'll continue to refer to 1 kilobyte as 1024 bytes, and no I will not use those silly baby talk sounding words like kibibyte. :p

[Sulphy]

... installed 10.4 ..... no GUI ... nothing at all really, but i can create a folder on the desktop!!!!!! Not a big Linux buff... so please dont belittle me too much... especially if it involves the terminal.... which i also cannot get by the way!

[Southern Patriot]

I always hated that they wanted to go and change it just because some people got their panties in a twist over the meaning of Kilo. Computers work in binary, not base 10. We've always defined them in digital measurements, and I'll continue to refer to 1 kilobyte as 1024 bytes, and no I will not use those silly baby talk sounding words like kibibyte. :p

+1 This revisionism is quite simply annoying (similar to the insistance in certain circles of using BCE instead of BC, when both refer to exactly the same time frame). People like me who have been using computers for the better part of 3 decades KNOW what KB means, because it has been used for decades and has always meant the same thing in computer terminology. The whole issue started with hard drive makers trying to excuse their use of the (then nonstandard) 1,000,000-byte definition of a megabyte when selling hard drives.

[boogerjones]

A pretty silly change. Doing this for the sake of technical accuracy blatantly ignore's Ubuntu Desktop's biggest roadblock to adoption: user-friendliness. And the standards argument is problematic in the same way that the argument against the use of "literally" as emphasis is problematic. It's a snotty change and ignores the fact that almost every hardware manufacturer and user is used to 1MB = 1024KB. Yes, this whole thing is started by HD manufacturers who wanted to nickel-and-dime us, but that's not a good enough excuse to stop now.

I wonder which NASA shuttle is going to crash because of this.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

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)

[Skyfrog]

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)

Yes having conflicting numbers is bad, and since we'd been using 1024 from the very beginning it should never have been changed. It was the hard drive makers that changed it, not because it was correct but because it made their products sound bigger. Once again, computers are binary devices. Yes Kilo means 1000...in base 10. We're not dealing with that though.

[itzwolf]

I always hated that they wanted to go and change it just because some people got their panties in a twist over the meaning of Kilo. Computers work in binary, not base 10. We've always defined them in digital measurements, and I'll continue to refer to 1 kilobyte as 1024 bytes, and no I will not use those silly baby talk sounding words like kibibyte. :p

I totally agree. (Y)

[XerXis]

Yes having conflicting numbers is bad, and since we'd been using 1024 from the very beginning it should never have been changed. It was the hard drive makers that changed it, not because it was correct but because it made their products sound bigger. Once again, computers are binary devices. Yes Kilo means 1000...in base 10. We're not dealing with that though.

yes, computers are binary machines and they work with bits, there is however no reason why a KILObyte should be 1024, none at all.

[Skyfrog]

yes, computers are binary machines and they work with bits, there is however no reason why a KILObyte should be 1024, none at all.

Yeah, except for that first thing you said, and that it's been used that way for decades... :laugh:

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Yes having conflicting numbers is bad, and since we'd been using 1024 from the very beginning it should never have been changed. It was the hard drive makers that changed it, not because it was correct but because it made their products sound bigger. Once again, computers are binary devices. Yes Kilo means 1000...in base 10. We're not dealing with that though.

HD makers were correct though.

Kilo means 1000, whether it's in Base 2, Base 10 or Base 16.

Edit: And "Well we've been wrong all this time, may as well keep being wrong" isn't that good a reason to me.

[Skyfrog]

HD makers were correct though.

Kilo means 1000, whether it's in Base 2, Base 10 or Base 16.

Edit: And "Well we've been wrong all this time, may as well keep being wrong" isn't that good a reason to me.

There is no 1000 in base 2, and I never agreed that we were wrong before.

[XerXis]

There is no 1000 in base 2, and I never agreed that we were wrong before.

of course there is 1000 = 8

just kidding :p

[Growled Member]

I really see no reason to change except just to change, which is never a good thing.

[Anooxy]

Kilo in the binary system means 1024. We've never been wrong.

[XerXis]

Kilo in the binary system means 1024. We've never been wrong.

no it doesn't why would it? Kilo is a word that means 1000, not 1024.

[Mr. Gibs]

no it doesn't why would it? Kilo is a word that means 1000, not 1024.

In computing, a binary prefix is a specifier or mnemonic that is prepended to the units of digital information, the bit and the byte, to indicate multiplication by a power of 2. In practice the powers used are mostly multiples of 10, so the prefixes denote powers of 1024 = 210.

The computer industry uses terms such as "kilobyte," "megabyte," and "gigabyte," and corresponding abbreviations "KB", "MB", and "GB", in two different ways. For example, in citations of main memory or RAM capacity, "gigabyte" customarily means 1073741824 bytes. This is a power of 2, specifically 230, so this usage is referred to as a "binary unit" or "binary prefix." However, in other contexts, the industry uses "kilo", "mega", "giga", etc., in a manner consistent with their meaning in the International System of Units (SI): as powers of 1000. For example, a "500 gigabyte" hard drive is 500000000000 bytes, and a "100 megabit" Ethernet connection is running at 100000000 bits per second.

Shamelessly stolen from wikipedia.

[Anooxy]

no it doesn't why would it? Kilo is a word that means 1000, not 1024.

Only in base 10. Binary system =/= base 10.

[Rigby]

no it doesn't why would it? Kilo is a word that means 1000, not 1024.

...and we all know that the meanings of words absolutely cannot change, nor is there any flexibility in their meanings.

There was never any problem. It was decided that 1 kilobyte was 1024 bytes, which in binary it is. Everyone understood it and there were no issues with it until hard drive makers realized they could change it for marketing purposes and milk a little more size out of their drives. Then consumers started screaming "where did all my space go" because the OS still reported it in the correct manner while the size on the box said something different. Thank hard drive manufacturers for this whole mess.

[XerXis]

Only in base 10. Binary system =/= base 10.

I'm fully aware of what base 10 and base 2 is, thank you very much. still don't see why a 1000 units of something should be 1024 in binary. There is no reason, there never has been a good reason and it only created confusion. It's a historical mistake and it's about time we start correcting it

[sanctified Veteran]

You can all argue that kilo in the binary system is 1024.

Yeah, it's true, but for the average consumer kilo is 1000 and HD makers using that just made things worse so I agree that some changes must be made if you want to reach the consumer, no other way around.

[the evn show]

Yes having conflicting numbers is bad, and since we'd been using 1024 from the very beginning it should never have been changed. It was the hard drive makers that changed it, not because it was correct but because it made their products sound bigger. Once again, computers are binary devices. Yes Kilo means 1000...in base 10. We're not dealing with that though.

Kilo means 10^3 everywhere, always and forever. It's an international standard clearly defined to be for powers of 10.

There are alternatives for base 2 systems that are also clearly defined - they are not the same as the base-10 SI prefixes. The term was used incorrectly and there is now a push to be more accurate. what benefit is there to continue to be incorrect in one branch of computing?

You might have had an argument if the prefix was universal within computer technology circles but it isn't (see network transmission rates: 1 megabit per second is not 1024^2 bits / second). It all hinges on the idea that computers will continue to operate in binary forever (quantum computers are likely to use base 3 or 5).

[Anooxy]

I'm fully aware of what base 10 and base 2 is, thank you very much. still don't see why a 1000 units of something should be 1024 in binary. There is no reason, there never has been a good reason and it only created confusion. It's a historical mistake and it's about time we start correcting it

Because it works better for digital calculations. Ask yourself why 1Byte has 8 bits? For the same reason, having 9bits you wouldn't be able to divide by 2, and 8 is a better choice than 10 because it's 2^3, while 10 is not a power of 2. 1024 is 2^10, while 1000 is not a power of 2 which complicates the ability of processors to calculate data.

Everything is in their right place, there is no use to put decimal system in computers because the hardware itself will never use it.

[Southern Patriot]

It also brings it in line with HD makers (who have always done it properly)

Uhhh, no. The standard since the beginnings of the personal computer revolution in the 70's (and probably before that) has been to refer to a kilobyte as KB (note the uppercase K) and that it was equal to 1024 bytes. And by extension a megabyte is 1024 KBs, and so on. The push towards using SI or IEC terminology only really got going a little over a decade ago when IEC passed their proposal for the new prefixes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibi-#Inconsistent_use_of_units

[megamanXplosion]

There is no 1000 in base 2

Your statement is ambiguous and confusing. Just for those who might be confused, it should be said that the Base-10 number 1000 is translatable to the Base-2 (binary) number 1111101000. Now, a kilobyte is defined as a quantity of bytes that amounts to 1000, with 1000 being understood as a Base-10 number, so there are 1000 (understood as Base-10) binary digits in a kilobyte.