From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC921387FD for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA466E0B28; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E76E0AAD for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z2so712504wiv.12 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:59:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=LQgj1IXuPsuBsK91r4llAxHR/1bOu2Nf2wt+q/MA0nw=; b=SXgUcXNvFcRfPhjOOx2dSGy9GKSSgJ2P0a/ZOqEU7Vr6A0xTJenQNz/WHg5zn7aSw/ SR2cvaTyCxtkHNJWfpFtDMybwXjJwS5ICd2+ZDrjaGN5oM2myBSOVglHr/5JJJ9wnCSZ 0I1E5i+EdgtFjdFAL+qMiDnEnpDKnnZqsU5QMVJhof3RLayGIO2zgoohwgKxYYYcLIJ4 s/3SLJ4UxCA3uDoZgQWgFPoljxHPHZq2M9+nnk+qAhWype9QA81OpOu04bFgOrn6pbJn EBoxnUb7ScWCq8l7zXXNXJLTieo5SC4Xoh5T3X9KBkFrpZhr3u1ER2kGMmxsVT8/Xdxv b+KQ== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.78.77 with SMTP id z13mr1292360wjw.64.1396223972722; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.80.72 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:59:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <20140330103342.76108bfb@pomiot.lan> <20140330163513.3e4cab1a@googlemail.com> <20140330173143.7b541b00@googlemail.com> <5338AC74.2070005@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:59:32 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 From: Douglas Dunn To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcfc98ebce4a04f5dbb9c2 X-Archives-Salt: 98473f60-240b-4ee4-a345-833686f6d34f X-Archives-Hash: 01790d7f3b52e9d2012e3745b7efedf2 --047d7bfcfc98ebce4a04f5dbb9c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Douglas James Dunn > wrote: > > The system you are most familiar with really depends on what Operating > > System you use. if you don't use computers you probably were exposed to > > either the SI units or imperial base 10 units. > > SI units ARE in base 10. Most imperial units aren't in base 10, and > the SI prefixes aren't generally used with imperial units. You don't > usually report height in centiyards, etc. > > There seems to be some kind of misconception that this has something > to do with imperial vs metric units. > > Bits and bytes are such a modern concept that they were pseudo-metric > from the start, but programmers tended to use the SI prefixes in > non-SI ways - defining a kilobyte as 1024 bytes. "Kilo" is an SI > prefix, but the SI defines it as 1000, not 1024. > > The 1024-byte kilobyte was never metric or SI or imperial. Fairly > recently JEDEC codified the 1024-byte kilobyte, but also endorsed the > 1024-byte kibibyte, and the usage obviously predates that standard. > Before then, programmers never really had a "standard" for the > kilobyte. Since programmers don't tend to do a lot of compound units, > getting their terms endorsed by a standards body was probably not much > of a priority. If they had gone to the SI/ISO (or whatever was around > in the 60s) they'd almost certainly have been shot down on having a > 1024-byte kilobyte. > > Rich > > I called it imperial base 10, in the fact that you count 1-9 before hitting 10 then 10-19 before hitting 20, rather than base 2, or whatever base you apply, not the fact that the units themselves are, and i realize that SI are in base 10 also. --047d7bfcfc98ebce4a04f5dbb9c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Rich Freeman <= ;rich0= @gentoo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:44= PM, Douglas James Dunn
<djdunn.safety= @gmail.com> wrote:
> The system you are most familiar with really depends on what Operating=
> System you use. =C2=A0if you don't use computers you probably were= exposed to
> either the SI units or imperial base 10 units.

SI units ARE in base 10. =C2=A0Most imperial units aren't in base= 10, and
the SI prefixes aren't generally used with imperial units. =C2=A0You do= n't
usually report height in centiyards, etc.

There seems to be some kind of misconception that this has something
to do with imperial vs metric units.

Bits and bytes are such a modern concept that they were pseudo-metric
from the start, but programmers tended to use the SI prefixes in
non-SI ways - defining a kilobyte as 1024 bytes. =C2=A0"Kilo" is = an SI
prefix, but the SI defines it as 1000, not 1024.

The 1024-byte kilobyte was never metric or SI or imperial. =C2=A0Fairly
recently JEDEC codified the 1024-byte kilobyte, but also endorsed the
1024-byte kibibyte, and the usage obviously predates that standard.
Before then, programmers never really had a "standard" for the kilobyte. =C2=A0Since programmers don't tend to do a lot of compound un= its,
getting their terms endorsed by a standards body was probably not much
of a priority. =C2=A0If they had gone to the SI/ISO (or whatever was around=
in the 60s) they'd almost certainly have been shot down on having a
1024-byte kilobyte.

Rich


I cal= led it imperial base 10, in the fact that you count 1-9 before hitting 10 t= hen 10-19 before hitting 20, rather than base 2, or whatever base you apply= , not the fact that the units themselves are, and i realize that SI are in = base 10 also.
--047d7bfcfc98ebce4a04f5dbb9c2--