bug-coreutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#17505: Pádraig: does this solve your consistency concern? (was bug#1


From: Linda Walsh
Subject: bug#17505: Pádraig: does this solve your consistency concern? (was bug#17505: dd statistics output)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:17:23 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird



Christian Groessler wrote:
On 07/27/14 19:11, Linda Walsh wrote:
It is more common to specify transfer sizes in SI and mean IEC if you
are in the US where the digital computer was created.

People in the US have not adopted SI units and many wouldn't know
a meter from a molehill, so SI units aren't the first thing that
they are likely to be meaning. Computer scientists and the industry here,
grew up with using IEC prefixes where multiples of 8 are already in
use.  I.e. if you are talking *bytes*, you are using base 2.


I didn't grow up in the US, and grew up with the metric system, but when I'm
talking about memory sizes I always mean IEC (2^10) and never SI (10^3).
The only pitfall here are hard disk sizes where I have to remember that "they"
mean SI.
----
        I was trying to come up with some reason for Padraig's belief
that people usually meant SI when using IEC prefixes for computer
sizes like units bytes (2^3bits) or sectors (2^12 bits)... now what
power of 10 is that?  I've never heard of anyone supporting Padraig
position -- so I assumed it must be some foreign country where the
metric system and metric prefixes are meant to apply to non-unary
and non-base-10 quantities.  Pádraig: where did you get your impression?

        When it comes to disk space -- computers always give it in
IEC -- except where they've bought the line that mixed base-2 and power-of-10
prefixes is a good thing, then they try to get others to buy into such.

But reality is that one can't express disk space as a power of 10 as there
is no multiple of 10 that lines up with a 512-byte multiple.  I.e. the system is
designed to be inaccurate and confuse the issue to make it harder for
consumers to do comparisons.


I don't get the reason for the dynamic switch at all. Can somebody enlighten me?
----
        I think it was thrown in as a red herring, as I can't think
of any useful case for it.  Having the output vary units randomly, not
at the bequest of the user, doesn't seem especially useful.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]