Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
Ivan Jager wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> #include <hallo.h>
>> * Ivan Jager [Fri, Jun 15 2007, 05:36:33PM]:
>>> Should we also add filesystem overhead to all file sizes
>>> just to avoid confusing newbies?
>> Second, "du" already does that. Go figure.
> No, it doesn't. It rounds up to a multiple of the block size. That only
> accounts for a small fraction of the filesystem overheaad. (Perhaps this
> will be more obvious if you write a multiple of your blocksize to a file.)
This sounds like another "not a perfect solution" fallacy. Accurately
presenting the full amount of disk space a file uses is an orthogonal
problem that having distinct prefixes can't be expected to solve. Having
distinct, unambiguous prefixes is still strictly better than having
>>>> I don't want to read some manual or source code just to know which base
>>>> is used when I read or write 10G. When I write, how can I unambiguously
>>>> tell the program that I mean 1000 or 1024? Only using G and Gi, this
>>>> would be possible.
>>> It only solves half the problem. GB is still ambiguous even if GiB
>> Sure, but it makes it possible to make it _right_ in a good portion of
>> situations. The people who really need binary units can make clear what
>> they are doing there. Otherwise they would deliberately create
>> confusion. You like to be among them? You like chaos and cheating?
> No, I like to avoid chaos and confusion. I do not currently have
> problems telling the size of a file, and adding an extra column of "i"s
> to the output of most programs isn't going to accomplish more than cause
> confusion for me when I use a program that doesn't waste the extra space
> to tell me, "Oh, by the way, I'm doing the sensical thing."
What you personally have become accustomed to is irrelevant in the big
picture and in the long run. That you can't think of any problems
doesn't mean that no problems exist
That you mistake an "SI" MB for a MiB, for example, is not an argument
against consistent prefix usage. The quicker everybody stops using power
of ten prefixes incorrectly, the quicker this transitional problem goes
> I can't say I adhere to, "Don't fix what isn't broken," but it does kind
> of bug me when people are encouranging other people to encourage yet
> other people to fix things that aren't broken.
But things *are* broken.
>>> How about using these prefixes to unambiguously refer to powers of 10?
>>> kd kidi 10^3
>> Like in kidigram and medameter? What comes next, midroutopicans?
> Yes, my intention was to make a silly set of prefixes whose only purpose
> was to look and sound silly while disambiguating from the commonly used
> ones we all know and love.
An appeal to emotions, once again.
Magnus Holmgren firstname.lastname@example.org