Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Pete Cervasio]

At 02:00 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Mike Dresser wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
>> > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
>>
>> Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
>>
>> Rik
>
>Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
>somedays.
>

Your threshold is set too high.  Read at -1 for megabels.  ;)

Best regards,
Pete C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Leaping Tiger kung-fu is no match for my Frightened Piglet style!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB inConfigure.help

[Chris Friesen]

Pete Cervasio wrote:
> 
> At 02:00 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Mike Dresser wrote:

> >Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> >somedays.
> >
> 
> Your threshold is set too high.  Read at -1 for megabels.  ;)

I think you really mean microbels.....  :)

-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10  
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

RE: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB inConfigure.help

[Ed Vance]

Pete Cervasio wrote:
> 
> At 02:00 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Mike Dresser wrote:

> >Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> >somedays.
> >
> 
> Your threshold is set too high.  Read at -1 for megabels.  ;)

What's brown and sounds like a bel?  :)

---------------------------------------------------------------- 
Ed Vance              serial24@macrolink.com
Macrolink, Inc.       1500 N. Kellogg Dr  Anaheim, CA  92807
----------------------------------------------------------------

Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Nayyer Tiger]

Greetings all,

I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at 
http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in 
electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte 
(MB) to MiB, etc, etc.

Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion 
related to this
change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a 
double take.

Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of 
Configure.help:

@@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
   If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
   more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
   (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
-  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
-  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
+  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
+  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
   space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
   as possible.

Steven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Nayyer Tiger wrote:

| I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at
| http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
| Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
| IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in
| electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
| and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte
| (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
|
| Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion
| related to this
| change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a
| double take.

Either decision will be disliked.  I don't care for the new/standard
abbreviations, but I can get used to them, and I expect that most
people can.

Let's get over it and back to the good stuff.

~Randy

and who are all these anon. people you copied?!?

| Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of
| Configure.help:
|
| @@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
|    If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
|    more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
|    (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
| -  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
| -  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
| +  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
| +  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
|    space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
|    as possible.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Nayyer Tiger wrote:
> 
> | I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at
> | http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
> | Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> | IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in
> | electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> | and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte
> | (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
> |
> | Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion
> | related to this
> | change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a
> | double take.
> 
> Either decision will be disliked.  I don't care for the new/standard
> abbreviations, but I can get used to them, and I expect that most
> people can.
> 
> Let's get over it and back to the good stuff.
> 
> ~Randy
> 

Is it a standard or is it something in-process? The reason I ask is
that neither KB nor KiB can possibly be correct.

According to the standards, where capitalization is used:
	(1) For a proper name.
	(2) To differentiate between otherwise identical symbols.

"KB" would mean:

	Kirchoff-Bell

It needs to be:

	"kb" to mean kilobyte.

In any event, I suggest that whatever exists just be left alone.
Both the present and the proposed changes are incorrect. The
present incorrect symbols are widely used, therefore the intent
is known. The proposed symbols are not widely used and will just
aggravate a sore created by Tech-Writers who can't read or write.

We have seen, in recent years, a continual change in English Language
usage where, what was once considered absolutely wrong, is now considered
correct. For instance double-negatives like "irregardless" are now
even codified by insertion into the dictionary. FYI, it is either
"regardless" or "irrespective". It can't be "irregardless".

So, let's let sleeping dogs lie. Oh yes, contractions are now getting
clobbered too. It is now acceptable to spell "dont" without the
apostrophe! I think Alan had something to do with that.... ;)


Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).

                 Windows-2000/Professional isn't.

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Andreas Dilger]

On Mar 18, 2002  11:36 -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> According to the standards, where capitalization is used:
> 	(1) For a proper name.
> 	(2) To differentiate between otherwise identical symbols.
> 
> "KB" would mean:
> 
> 	Kirchoff-Bell
> 
> It needs to be:
> 
> 	"kb" to mean kilobyte.

Argh.  Not this thread again. "kb" is kilo _bits_ not kilo _bytes_.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger  \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
                 \  would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/               -- Dogbert

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Jakob Kemi]

On Monday 18 March 2002 17.36, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Nayyer Tiger wrote:
> > | I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available
> > | at http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
> > | Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> > | IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in
> > | electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> > | and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB,
> > | Megabyte (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
> > |
> > | Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some
> > | discussion related to this
> > | change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do
> > | a double take.
> >
> > Either decision will be disliked.  I don't care for the new/standard
> > abbreviations, but I can get used to them, and I expect that most
> > people can.
> >
> > Let's get over it and back to the good stuff.
> >
> > ~Randy
>
> Is it a standard or is it something in-process? The reason I ask is
> that neither KB nor KiB can possibly be correct.

KiB is correct, please visit:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

There was a huge thread on this subject in dec '01. If anyone feels like
bringing back this horse please at least read through that thread before
we starting over again.

http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=linux.kernel.1008872772.2777.16.camel%40phantasy.SOMEWHERE&rnum=1


	-- Jakob

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.3.95.1020318112042.740A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>
By author:    "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> Is it a standard or is it something in-process? The reason I ask is
> that neither KB nor KiB can possibly be correct.
> 
> According to the standards, where capitalization is used:
> 	(1) For a proper name.
> 	(2) To differentiate between otherwise identical symbols.
> 

This is obviously untrue for prefixes.  Consider the prefix T (10^12),
which has no lower-case equivalent.

The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.

I don't like the pronunciations used in the new standard, but I think
using Ki, Mi, Gi, ... at least in writing is a good thing, to
disambiguate between binary and decimal powers.  I just read them as
"binary kilobytes" etc if I need to be clear.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Rik van Riel]

On 18 Mar 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.

Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)

Rik
-- 
<insert bitkeeper endorsement here>

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Mike Dresser]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
>
> Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
>
> Rik

Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
somedays.

=)

mike

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> > > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
> >
> > Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
> >
> > Rik
>
> Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> somedays.

I'm not sure what parallel universe you live in, but I'm
pretty damn sure that mine doesn't have 10000 times more
signal than noise on slashdot ;)

An S+N/N of one kB is 40 dB...

regards,

Rik
-- 
<insert bitkeeper endorsement here>

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Chris Friesen]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:

> > Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> > somedays.
> 
> I'm not sure what parallel universe you live in, but I'm
> pretty damn sure that mine doesn't have 10000 times more
> signal than noise on slashdot ;)
> 
> An S+N/N of one kB is 40 dB...

<pedantic>

dB is decibel, kB would be kilobel, so one kB is 10000 dB

a kilobel works out to a signal to noise ratio of 10^1000, which is pretty big,
and definately a bit bigger than the slashdot signal to noise ratio  :)

</pedantic>


-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10  
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Mike Dresser]

> <pedantic>
>
> dB is decibel, kB would be kilobel, so one kB is 10000 dB
>
> a kilobel works out to a signal to noise ratio of 10^1000, which is pretty big,
> and definately a bit bigger than the slashdot signal to noise ratio  :)
>
> </pedantic>
<b><pedantic>
if dB is 10 bel's, wouldn't kB be 1000 bel's, therefore one kB is only 100
deci-bel's?

Creating a S/N ratio of 10^100?

</pedantic></b>

I forget what we were debating now.

mike

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Mike Dresser]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:

> <b><pedantic>
> if dB is 10 bel's, wouldn't kB be 1000 bel's, therefore one kB is only 100
> deci-bel's?
>
> Creating a S/N ratio of 10^100?
>
> </pedantic></b>

No Mike, go back to school!

Deci, not deca!

<dummy>Mike</dummy>

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Remco Post]

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Mike Dresser wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > > The unit here is B, which does conflict with the unit bel, but is
> > > > widely used to mean byte in computer contexts.
> > >
> > > Also, the kilobell is highly unlikely to be used ;)
> > >
> > > Rik
> >
> > Dunno about that, the S/N ratio on slashdot seems to get into the kB's
> > somedays.
> 
> I'm not sure what parallel universe you live in, but I'm
> pretty damn sure that mine doesn't have 10000 times more
> signal than noise on slashdot ;)
> 
> An S+N/N of one kB is 40 dB...
> 
> regards,
> 
> Rik
> -- 

changing the d to a k doesn't do anything for the  behaviour Bell scale, it's 
just scaling... :) so 1 kB = 10000 dB...



-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Remco Post

SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam    http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing  Tel. +31 20 592 8008    Fax. +31 20 668 3167

"I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer
industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer industry
didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams

Re: Changing KB, MB, and GB to KiB, MiB, and GiB in Configure.help

[Steven Cole]

On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 04:31, Nayyer Tiger wrote:
> Greetings all,
> 
> I see that in the very latest Configure.help version, 2.76, available at 
> http:/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
> Eric has decided to follow the following standard:
> IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be used in 
> electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics.
> and has changed all the abbreviations for Kilobyte (KB) to KiB, Megabyte 
> (MB) to MiB, etc, etc.
> 
> Now, granted that this is the "standard", should there be some discussion 
> related to this
> change, or is everyone comfortable with this?  It certainly made me do a 
> double take.
> 
> Here is a snippet from the diff between versions 2.75 and 2.76 of 
> Configure.help:
> 
> @@ -344,8 +344,8 @@
>    If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
>    more than 960 megabytes of total physical RAM, answer "off" here
>    (default choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a
> -  "3GB/1GB" split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB
> -  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory
> +  "3GiB/1GiB" split: 3GiB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GiB
> +  virtual memory space and the remaining part of the 4GiB virtual memory
>    space is used by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory
>    as possible.
> 
> Steven

Hey team,

This is the message I posted just before Christmas last year.  The
following thread was quite long and many good arguments were posted pro
and con.  ESR decided to keep the KiB and MiB in Configure.help after
all was said and done, but then Linus split up an older version (v2.69
IIRC) which did not have these changes, performing a "pocket veto" of
the MB to MiB conversion.  Marcello did not accept any changes from ESR
after v2.69 also, so that whole discussion was made rather moot.

So rather than beating up on this horse which was already buried last
year, I suggest spending time more productively.

Steven