Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#21

Post by mprime »

derefr wrote: post #8
macco wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is great that they are caring about the non-technical user. Why should be a kilo = 1024? It is 1000 - everybody knows this. :)

And then, when one of those non-technical users buys a "500GB hard drive", they'll actually be "getting" 500GB [according to their computer], instead of only 465.6. That oughta make everyone's lives a bit less anxietal.

Then the "non-technical" user who complains about this can go fuck themselves, since the Windows machine they're supposed to be switching from does the same thing.

At first it sounds like I'm trolling, but please think this issue through. What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024?

If you want something that the end user will really care about, ship Ubuntu with a default theme that doesn't look horrible, or include useful codecs and plugins in the default install. "Oh, but those are easy to obtain", you say? So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5 seconds explaining that it's 1024, not 1000? Not that I care enough to create some stupid "UBUNTU + FLASH LOL" distro, since I use Arch or one of the BSDs, but it just seems stupid that they'd make a silly, superficial change like this and expect a pat on the back.

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#22

Post by derefr »

mprime wrote: post #21
derefr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, when one of those non-technical users buys a "500GB hard drive", they'll actually be "getting" 500GB [according to their computer], instead of only 465.6. That oughta make everyone's lives a bit less anxietal.

Then the "non-technical" user who complains about this can go fuck themselves, since the Windows machine they're supposed to be switching from does the same thing. At first it sounds like I'm trolling, but please think this issue through. What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out tha…

> What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024?

They don't care about the hard drive size per se, they just care that all the numbers the computer reports are as impressive as the ones the salesman told them.

> So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5 seconds explaining that it's 1024, not 1000?

It is when you're being yelled at in the product returns line. It sounds like an excuse and an ass-pull, and it's not something that would calm down a belligerent customer.

Remember that there are two types of people who have Ubuntu—those that got it themselves, and those who had it dropped upon them by a more technical user. For the second group, "superficial" change is the only kind of change they care about, vis. http://www.makemylogobiggercream.com/

Also, as a side-note, the cost of being widely-used by governments and public institutions, and being open-source, is that you have to obey the law, so the option to "include useful codecs and plugins in the default install" just isn't available. (You can't purchase a license for a codec when you literally don't know how many users you have.)

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#23

Post by pieter »

jrockway wrote: post #17

This is interesting, as we are finally moving away from storage that uses base-10 measurement (rotating disks). SSDs and flash drives are mostly base-2 devices.

Where did you get that from? Both Intel and OCZ, probably the most popular makers of SSD's, use base-10 in their product advertising. HDD or SSD doesn't matter from a consumer perspective.

http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/32229...

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid_state_drives/ocz...

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#24

Post by andrewvc »

derefr wrote: post #8
macco wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is great that they are caring about the non-technical user. Why should be a kilo = 1024? It is 1000 - everybody knows this. :)

And then, when one of those non-technical users buys a "500GB hard drive", they'll actually be "getting" 500GB [according to their computer], instead of only 465.6. That oughta make everyone's lives a bit less anxietal.

So, since HD manufacturers use inflated numbers the solution is for everyone else to change?

Does this mean we're going to stop using base 2 for things like network speeds as well? What will users think when they have lets say a photo management program, that says that their library is 495 GB (base 2) and then they try to transfer that over to a disk that has 500 gb (base 10) available, only to find 495 doesn't fit in 500. That's going to be pretty confusing.

The fact is the ONLY place I've ever seen base 10 numbers for storage has been on storage media to fool people about filesize. The programs users use have standardized on base 2, and this is just going to be confusing.

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#25

Post by derefr »

andrewvc wrote: post #24
derefr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, when one of those non-technical users buys a "500GB hard drive", they'll actually be "getting" 500GB [according to their computer], instead of only 465.6. That oughta make everyone's lives a bit less anxietal.

So, since HD manufacturers use inflated numbers the solution is for everyone else to change? Does this mean we're going to stop using base 2 for things like network speeds as well? What will users think when they have lets say a photo management program, that says that their library is 495 GB (base 2) and then they try to transfer that over to a disk that has 500 gb (base 10) available, only to find 495 doesn't fit i…

The pragmatic solution, yes. Idealistically, it might feel wrong, but idealism has never made for a better UX.

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#26

Post by mprime »

derefr wrote: post #22
mprime wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the "non-technical" user who complains about this can go fuck themselves, since the Windows machine they're supposed to be switching from does the same thing. At first it sounds like I'm trolling, but please think this issue through. What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out tha…

> What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024? They don't care about the hard drive size per se , they just care that all the numbers the computer reports are as impressive as the ones the salesman told them. > So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5…

>It is when you're being yelled at in the product returns line.

So this person is yelling about something they know nothing about? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a sever case of "stupid" to me.

>http://www.makemylogobiggercream.com/

Funny video!

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#27

Post by derefr »

mprime wrote: post #26
derefr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024? They don't care about the hard drive size per se , they just care that all the numbers the computer reports are as impressive as the ones the salesman told them. > So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5…

>It is when you're being yelled at in the product returns line. So this person is yelling about something they know nothing about? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a sever case of "stupid" to me. > http://www.makemylogobiggercream.com/ Funny video!

Most of User Experience design is making changes that make stupid people less angry :)

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#28

Post by CrLf »

Snow Leopard uses base-10 units in some places, base-2 units in other places.

It isn't really confusing because when I go check how much free space I have on my hard-drive I'm just looking for a rough value, it can be base-10, base-2 or just "lots", "enough" or "almost out". The same happens to files and directories, I just want to know if they are "huge", "big" or "reasonable".

The problem is that the "old way" of reporting units in base-2 served the same purpose in exactly the same way. But this gratuitous change brings an heterogenous environment that causes problems when I want do do scripts or somesuch technical stuff where the exact amounts _do_ matter, and now have to worry in which base they are (and often this isn't obvious).

Consistency was dropped for nothing.

As for Ubuntu, I think this is a "me too" move that serves no purpose. But hey, I don't use Ubuntu, so I couldn't care less.

Re: Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release

#30

Post by andrewvc »

derefr wrote: post #25
andrewvc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, since HD manufacturers use inflated numbers the solution is for everyone else to change? Does this mean we're going to stop using base 2 for things like network speeds as well? What will users think when they have lets say a photo management program, that says that their library is 495 GB (base 2) and then they try to transfer that over to a disk that has 500 gb (base 10) available, only to find 495 doesn't fit i…

The pragmatic solution, yes. Idealistically, it might feel wrong, but idealism has never made for a better UX.

I actually don't find this pragmatic at all. The current scenario is that storage numbers are consistent in software (base 2) and consistent in hardware (base 10).

The end result of this is that storage numbers will be inconsistent in software, and consistent in hardware. How is that an improvement?

Post reply on HN