Hi; My 0.02 cents. This topic about word usage in the computer field in general and in Linux in particular has been a bug bear to me for a long time. On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 14:59 +0100, Toralf Lund wrote: > Tim wrote: > >No, not really. It all stems from the ABSOLUTe MISUSE of kilo by the > >computer fraternity. Kilo means, and ONLY means, "one times ten to the > >third power", i.e. "one thousand". Likewise, Mega means, and ONLY > >means, "one times ten to the sixth power", i.e. "one million". Even if > >you change base units (so you're not using powers of ten) to express the > >worth of Kilo and Mega, etc., they've still got to mean one thousand or > >one million, etc., not some *slightly* different value. > >There's only one mob to blame for the confusion of what KB and MB, etc., > >mean: The computer programmers. > > > > > Yes, in a way you are right. But I *very much doubt* the marketing > people would have adopted a different standard from the computer > programmers, if it wasn't for the fact that it would give them a higher > number to use in their advertising. > > >And it doesn't stop there, either. Is one MB 1024 KB, or something > >else? People have different opinions about that, so it makes MB even > >more vague than KB. > > > Not really. People who say 1kb is 1024 bytes will also say that 1Mb is > 1024kb. They don't change their minds about the factors in the middle of > it all. > > > What about Giga and Terra, are they each 1024 times > >their inferior? > > > Actually, what it means should not matter one bit in that context. The > only sensible thing to do in capacity calculations of the kind you > mention, is to work in bytes, or possibly (if the device works that way) > in the "blocks" that form the allocation unit of the drive. Converting > to kilobytes or whatever first would be completely meaningless, even if > there was no confusion about what it meant. > > - T [lots of snippage] I agree with most of what has been said. On both sides. That is Kilo, Mega, Tera have very specific meanings as defined by the SI. For binary references the misuse can be made acceptable because its misuse is usually in an unique context and has become honoured by time and use. However to me, its not just the size modifiers that are abused, most of all of plain language has been distorted by IT. Have you ever tried to write or verbally explain something about computers to someone without using a word or a phrase that now has some special computer technology meaning (or two) attached to it? Trying to speak in plain language in those circumstances produces massive confusion and misunderstanding. I understand and sympathize with how and why technicians, engineers and scientist in the computer field keep borrowing plain language words. But, they never give them back! As impossible as it sounds, I would like to see a reputable and inclusive standards committee review the computer or at least Linux lexicon from time to and suggest alternate and or newly created terms so that ordinary words can be returned to the ordinary language pool. By the way, I speak of plain words, because I do not want to restrict the problem or the solution to the English language alone. In fact, there are a large number of languages and alphabets in the world. Even though most borrowings might originally come from English, there need not be a restriction on what some such standards committee might choose for a new designation or definition. POSIX worked. Hmmm. That's more like 0,04 cents. Sorry. Regards Bill
