Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:13:46 -0500 From: Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org> To: Andrew McKay <andy@openirc.co.uk> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.ORG, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Subject: Re: inconsistent use of data units Message-ID: <20020222091346.B33638@blackhelicopters.org> In-Reply-To: <20020222092132.K79251-100000@fluoxetine.lan>; from andy@openirc.co.uk on Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:04:47AM %2B0000 References: <20020221022225.GA12900@hades.hell.gr> <20020222092132.K79251-100000@fluoxetine.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I like this color.
I do have to wonder what a "mebagit" is, however. I know quite a few
gits; is this the standard unit of git-ishness?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:04:47AM +0000, Andrew McKay wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>
> GK> Well, I want my bikeshed green. And I'd prefer it all (consistently)
> GK> written as shown below:
> GK>
> GK> Short form Long form
> GK> ==================================
> GK> 1 MB 1 Megabyte
> GK> 1 KB 1 Kilobyte
> GK> 1 Mbit 1 Mebagit
> GK> 1 Kbit 1 Kilobit
> GK>
> GK> This way, there is no confusion as to whether Mb refers to bytes or bits.
> GK> Bytes are always capitalized, and denoted by appending 'B', and bits are
> GK> explicitly mentioned as 'bits' without capitalization. This last Mbit/Kbit
> GK> notation seems rather clear, and it seems to be some sort of a de facto
> GK> standard among people working on routers and telecomm guys.
>
> This works for me. 'B' for byte and 'b' for bit is a loose standard but
> the fact that it's implemented inconsistently can lead to confusion
> (although context is usually enough for most people to work out what it
> means). 'B' for byte and 'bit' for bit makes it 100% clear, 100% of the
> time. I also agree with Michael. If these are implemented as entities
> then a) it's easier to be consistent, and b) it's easier to change them if
> the IEEE ever insists we stop using SI prefixes to refer to similar sane
> quantities.
>
> To get back to the original thread we can ACTUALLY define the 'K' prefix
> to mean anything we like, seeing as SI does not use K as a prefix. No
> doubt the SI advocates would like to suggest that KB refers to a 'Kelvin
> Byte'. If we defined this as the temperature rise produced by one byte of
> storage per clock cycle then it would be of much interest to overclockers
> who would have a standard way of knowing how much heat various storage
> mechanisms generate in their system. This would lead to an ad war amongst
> manufacturers all claiming to have the 'lowest KB rating per Mebibyte of
> memory'. Once this system was established the potential for confusion
> would be eliminated. For the twenty years in between, where no one had a
> clue what anything meant ('Quantispeed technology', anyone?), we'd all
> just ignore everything that seemed inconsistent with what we knew. :)
>
> So...would anyone like me to contact the SI committee and offer this as a
> unit for them to ratify? I think a pay-per-use royalty for the newly
> coined 'Kelvin Byte' could generate a lot of money for FreeBSD :P
>
> Yours, with tongue firmly in cheek,
> Andy
>
> --
> Andrew McKay <andy@openirc.co.uk>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
--
Michael Lucas mwlucas@FreeBSD.org, mwlucas@BlackHelicopters.org
my FreeBSD column: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020222091346.B33638>