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

31–40 of 52 posts

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

#31

Post by derefr »

andrewvc wrote: post #30
derefr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know where you're getting the "consistent in software" bit. OSX already switched to base 10 seven months ago with 10.6—this is, like with the window caption buttons thing, probably where Ubuntu got the idea. Now the only one doing it differently (that non-technical users are aware of) is Windows—and I'm guessing they'll be right along in W8.

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

#32

Post by geocar »

AngryParsley wrote: post #10
axod wrote: post #9

This is like the half metrication of the UK. You end up with 2 systems, and twice as much confusion. Base 2 is far more logical and useful IMHO :/ Wouldn't it be so much simpler if humans had evolved to have 16 fingers instead of 10...

We should use imperial units since they're more natural/intuitive/(insert rationalization here): 1 InchByte = 2.54 bytes = approximately pi bits (Edit: oops, it's about 20 bits. I divided where I should have multiplied.) 1 FootByte = 30.5 bytes 1 YardByte = 91.4 bytes 1 RodByte = 503 bytes 1 MileByte = 160,934 bytes 1 AUByte = 14.7 terabytes 1 LightYearByte = 841 petabytes So 1 megabyte is almost exactly 2^15 footbyt…

That doesn't make any sense. You need to be using imperial volumes.

1 tablespoonbyte is approximately 36 bits (I just counted, with couscous, the universal measure), which makes a pintbyte is 1152 bytes- about a kilobyte, but also the number of pixels across on my screen.

It also gives us a gallonbyte - just shy of 10 kilobytes at 9216 bytes. That's even more convenient, because it's square root is 96.

Of course, having a hogsheadbyte at 442368- well, I think even you will find it difficult to argue the usefulness of finally being able to use a multiple of 442368.

Finally, we've got the tunbyte: 2322432. Nobody will ever need more than about 28% of a tunbyte of memory, so you see it scales out at just the most convenient point for us here.

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

#33

Post by andrewvc »

derefr wrote: post #31
andrewvc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know where you're getting the "consistent in software" bit. OSX already switched to base 10 seven months ago with 10.6—this is, like with the window caption buttons thing, probably where Ubuntu got the idea. Now the only one doing it differently (that non-technical users are aware of) is Windows—and I'm guessing they'll be right along in W8.

Wow, I had to idea OSX did that, I only use Linux and Windows. Well, I guess things aren't as constant as I thought they were.

I still think the overwhelming majority of software uses base 2, and that base 2 for that reason alone should be the standard. Neither standard is really better than the other, the more popular one should win.

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

#34

Post by klodolph »

phob wrote: post #14
klodolph wrote: post #5

Yes, yes, YES! I loathe the 1024-byte kilobyte.

Why?

Because I sometimes want to do math. Lets say I want to put 6h33m of video on a 4.7 GB DVD. What bitrate do I choose? Ah, 4.7e9*8 bit / 23580 s = 1.59 Mbit/s. Now what happens if we use powers of two? I have to type a lot more into my calculator.

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

#35

Post by jrockway »

pieter wrote: post #23
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...

The physical hardware involved, rather. You can write whatever you want on the box, and you can disable as many sectors in firmware as you want. Doesn't mean that NAND flash doesn't come in power-of-two units.

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

#37

Post by chadaustin »

axod wrote: post #9

This is like the half metrication of the UK. You end up with 2 systems, and twice as much confusion. Base 2 is far more logical and useful IMHO :/ Wouldn't it be so much simpler if humans had evolved to have 16 fingers instead of 10...

Maybe it's my physics background, but I never understood the "base 2 is more logical" argument. The only time I care about file sizes is "how many files can I fit on this {DVD,external drive,iPhone}?"

It's so much easier to translate GB to MB by multiplying by 1000 and vice versa.

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

#38

Post by plesn »

tvon wrote: post #12
plesn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, I feel that they are just beginning to get interested in the user experience: boot process, themes, app installation, IM integration, scanning app, etc... I have high expectations for 10.10 on this side.

Well, the user experience is more or less the point of Ubuntu, so I'd say they've been working on it since 2004. They've made a lot of progress, certainly, but it's not like they've just turned their attention to these things...

Yes, but until now it was more things under the hood. It was mainly a breeze to install and to maintain.

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

#39

Post by chanux »

axod wrote: post #9

This is like the half metrication of the UK. You end up with 2 systems, and twice as much confusion. Base 2 is far more logical and useful IMHO :/ Wouldn't it be so much simpler if humans had evolved to have 16 fingers instead of 10...

Yeah I never really felt comfortable with this base 10 thing. Maybe because I believe base 2 representation is the way to express what it actually is.

On the other hand base 2 should've been confusing average Joe for a long time now and the operating systems that want themselves to be average Joe understandable.

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

#40

Post by theschwa »

AngryParsley wrote: post #7
barnaby wrote: post #3

I'm amazed at the depth Canonical are going into in order to make the user experience for Ubuntu as simple and stunning as possible. It's this kind of attention to detail is making Ubuntu the number one OS out there.

Compared to OS X or Windows, I'd say Ubuntu gets a lot of details wrong. The window button positioning was a recent example, but it's by no means the first. Below are some bugs that I have experienced while using 9.10 or 10.04 beta. I also noted the year they were filed. Lots of redundant fonts: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/18666 (2005) Copy-pasting text is broken in some apps. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ub…

Out of curiosity, do you have another distro that you feel does a better job of this, or do you feel this is simply true for most distros?
Post reply on HN