[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: How to configure konqueror to show KB and MB instead of KiB and
From:       Josh Berry <des () condordes ! net>
Date:       2009-07-09 16:09:05
Message-ID: 2feea0a0907090909s485ba153tde32f489955fb761 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 22:40, Michael Pyne<mpyne@kde.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 July 2009 00:53:17 Josh Berry wrote:
>> Nor does it mean what the IEEE, SI units, etc. define it to mean.  The
>> IEEE is, in fact, pretty clear that "kilo" = 1,000, "mega" =
>> 1,000,000, etc. now that the binary units have been standardized by
>> the IEC.  (see: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html )
>
> So now that the IEC has said so, Arora is leading me astray when it says a
> file is 64.7 KB?  My flash cards aren't really 4GB?
>
> You can thump the specs on the desk all you want but you can't just change the
> definition of the units in this context without at least some more buy-in from
> just KDE, a point you yourself have made in your response below when you
> mention doing unprecedented things.

Okay, let me say it yet another time and maybe it will sink in:

I AM NOT CHANGING THE DEFINITION.  The definition itself is AMBIGUOUS.

I am sick of you misrepresenting my position as if I were trying to
redefine something on which there is consensus.  Obviously, there is
not consensus.  Again I ask you to please stop trying to pretend that
there is.

>> Except it is NOT a new unit.  It is correcting a mistake that was made
>> decades ago and propagated by lazy software developers.
>
> "decades ago".  I mean, seriously, listen to that.  Right or wrong, the
> definition of these units are backed up by *decades* of actual usage, so
> you're going to have a very hard time convincing a lot of people that their
> values magically changed once some IEC engineers signed a form to issue a new
> standard.
>
> And it's unfair to say "propagated by lazy software developers" because that's
> what the unit was (at least for memory capacities).

With all repsect to Ian and others programming in the 60s, I
understand the historical context in which the binary units were
created, and I still maintain that it was at the very least sloppy
(and intellectually lazy) to not (a) use the prefixes as intended by
SI, or (b) invent *iB or some other binary unit as soon as it was
needed.

The latter option, certainly, would have been trivial.

>> Unfortunately, the meaning of the *B units has become sufficiently
>> diluted to the point where we now have two equally-passionate groups
>> of people arguing over what they mean, and for all the messages that
>> have flown back and forth, we are no closer to agreement.  If
>> anything, the two sides have become entrenched and I don't see how
>> further discussion will get us closer to an answer.
>>
>> Given the above, I've changed my mind -- I no longer think KDE should
>> have any units other than the *iB units.  Those are the only units we
>> seem to be able to agree on.  The meaning of the *B units has been
>> sufficiently diluted to the point that NO MATTER what definition we
>> pick, someone will likely misinterpret them.
>
> Well there is apparently interest in having real decimal units.  My only real
> complaint is that it can't (yet) be the "kilobyte".

On that, we agree.

> Go out and look on Google or Yahoo about kilobyte being 1024.  You'll find
> pages telling you to impress your friends with the little-known fact that a
> kilobyte is 1024 bytes, dozens of articles "explaining" kilobytes, megabytes,
> etc.  If anything, the unit has become more ubiquitous to mean 1024 in
> computer applications over time, not less.
[links snipped]

Great.  So now we have some groups of people (OSes, devs) arguing it's
a "little-known fact" (hm) that it's 1024 bytes, and we have other
groups (the IEC, every hard disk manufacturer) saying no, it's
actually 1000 bytes.

Sounds pretty ambiguous to me.

>> > How about we name it dkB (note the lowercase k), with equivalents all the
>> > way up (dMB, dGB, dTB, etc.)?  That way people who really do want to see
>> > units in powers of 10 can, with no uncertainty as to what units they are
>> > getting, and those of us who just want to go on with our lives can
>> > continue to use KiB (or its misspelling KB).
>>
>> I think we already have too many units.  KDE really *would* be doing
>> something unprecedented with this, as it really does break with what
>> everyone else is doing (nevermind the standards).
>
>> You objected before
>> to confusing users with KB = 1000 -- I think this would be an even
>> worse source of confusion.
>
> You can't have it both ways.  It can't be OK to confuse users by changing KB
> or forcing KiB and simultaneously not OK to confuse users by allowing a
> explicitly base 10 kedibyte (I'm sure you'll notice I just made up that name
> on the spot).  You will confuse thousands more users (backed up by decades of
> experience using the units) by making KB base-10 than you will by showing new
> units which the user has to manually select.  Even worse, the user would have
> to have manually selected the KB, and therefore been seeking it out in the
> first place!  This user was probably expecting the KB he's used for decades.
> Talk about confusing.

Which is why I no longer think KB should be included in KDE, in any capacity.

> At the same time it's can't be OK for KDE to do something unprecedented with
> units on the one hand (1000 byte KB) but not on the other hand (dkB).

The former is backed up by internationally-ratified standards and
brings bytes into line with the precedent set by EVERY OTHER UNIT in
the SI standard.

The latter is something you made up in your head yesterday.

One of these has less precedent than the other. :p

>> We need to disambiguate the existing units, not make up new ones.
>> That's why "KiB" et al were created in the first place.
>
> Well I'd argue that my proposal is exactly in line with existing practice.
> Somehow computer users survived for decades with 1024-byte kilobytes before it
> became a major issue with mass storage manufacturers.  So we disambiguated by
> making up new units.
>
> But now we still have a disconnect over the old units, so I say we could
> disambiguate the other way.  Perfect Solomon's logic, we have KiB and then we
> have kdB.  Actually that could be confused easily with deci-, let's see
> here... how about ↁ to mean explicitly decimal bytes?  (And from there, kↁ,
> Mↁ, Gↁ, etc.)  (In case it doesn't show up, it's code point U+2181, Roman
> numeral five thousand, which looks to me vaguely like a D-within-a-D).

That's all well and good.  But you've now run afoul of your own logic
-- doing so would be unprecedented as KDE would be the ONLY ONES doing
it.

So I guess the question is, at what point, and in what way, does KDE
break with precedent?

[snip; argument under false assumptions corrected above]
> If enough users want the decimal units then there's no reason not to allow it,
> but I don't want us to get caught showing KB meaning 1000 when the user thinks
> it means 1024 so it needs to be very clear.  After all, users have taken hard
> disk manufacturers to court over just this very topic.

As I said in my last mail, I now agree with you that we should not add
KB = 1000.  But I don't think we should add KB = 1024, either.
Regardless of how we personally might view them, both are equally
confusing.

But I will support KB = 1000 before I support making up any new units.
 That, at least, has some support outside of KDE.

-- Josh
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]