Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release
CyberDragon777 writes "Ubuntu's future 10.10 operating system is going to make a small, but contentious change to how file sizes are represented. Like most other operating systems using binary prefixes, Ubuntu currently represents 1 kB (kilobyte) as 1024 bytes (base-2). But starting with 10.10, a switch to SI prefixes (base-10) will denote 1 kB as 1000 bytes, 1 MB as 1000 kB, 1 GB as 1000 MB, and so on."
I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end. I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file (bash hasn't been polluted by this feature).
I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do _not_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count. What's next? Imperial units for us Europeans?
The most annoying? That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units.
Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
And even in the metrically challenged USA, SI happens to be the law. Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI. If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.
The rule actually is that anything measured must use SI prefixes and units (in the US and some other backward countries some historic units may be allowable besides SI units, but prefixes are the law even there) when sold, i.e. the HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement. If they do, that would be fraudulent. The only thing that would save them is that it is permissible to give the customer more than stated.
So how do RAM sizes come into this? Simple: A RAM size is not a measurement. It is membership in a size class. While a HDD can have an arbitrary size (well, modulo 512, but that is a detail with todays sizes), RAM cannot have other sizes than powers of 2 and hence a statement like 1MB for RAM is a statement of membership in a specific size class and not a measurement. (Incidentially, 1mb is 1 mili-bit, i.e. 1/1000 of a bit. Get this right or be regarded as a moron!)
I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake. Grow up!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's not a standard in the computer world though. How many bits per second does your gigabit network carry?
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
In computers, there are critically important reasons why base2 is used (transistors act as electronic switches which have two states: on and off). Wiring buses in computers (address lines, data lines) are base2, with the electricity being on or off. When data is read and written on the hard disk, its done in a binary format. When searching for data on a disk, its either a binary search, or the equivalent of a binary search (divide and conquer) algorithm used to find data, with O(log n) search time. Please don't dumb it down. We don't need to dumb it down. Its not that the computer is to compl-cated, its that the user is too dumb. Users have been suing drive manufacturers who have been lying to people like this. I expect data to be stored this way. Two wrongs don't make a right (it takes three lefts for that), but I digress, don't change it. DON'T!
FIrst off, young sprat, I've used decimal hardware. So are you going to force me to say 1KB is 1024 even though it makes no sense on that system?
Second, I've used disk drives for other purposes than computers - data logging using dedicated hardware. Why should I be tied to your computer idiosyncrasies? Mass storage was around before computers settled on binary. It has always used decimal units. You are making a common mistake - assuming that because something is some way now, that it was always that way.
Third, if base two is so critical to computers, then how many Hertz are in 1 MHz?
And finally, I'm now working on ternary logic. Storing information as 3^N is already inside some devices you're using, so maybe binary is not so critical after all.
Finally they've seen sense and will switch to the metric ten-bit byte.
I'm fed up of this short-changing every time I use a byte! I'm sure the memory companies will harp on about how it will increase costs by 25% but they've had an easy life for years.
If God had meant us to program with 8 bits per byte, he'd have given us 8 fingers.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Moreover, why would it make any more sense to use KiB than KB for things like file sizes other than purely historical reasons? A file is a sequence of bytes of arbitrary length with no grouping whatsoever. It's just a sequence. I wouldn't mind using SI units when dealing with hardware that is already specified in SI units to begin with.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Well, when I was in university, studying computer science (who'd've guessed that a /. contributor studied comp sci?), KB was defined as 2^10 bytes, MB was 2^20, and GB was a pipe dream (hey, I graduated from uni in 1986). So, for us, kB WAS defined as 1024 bytes. That's how ALL of my textbooks, which I still have btw, defined kB.
Perhaps it was not defined as 1024 bytes everywhere (comp sci types are notorious for having multiple standards), but it was defined as 1024 bytes in a fair number of places.
linquendum tondere