MiB in gparted?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
        What's with the typo in GParted? I was re-arranging my partitions when
I saw this.
        I guess it's time to see if a bug was files about this...

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Jason Crain
On Mon, February 9, 2009 12:49 pm, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
> What's with the typo in GParted? I was re-arranging my partitions when
> I saw this.

It is intentional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiB

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
Jason Crain wrote:
> On Mon, February 9, 2009 12:49 pm, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>> What's with the typo in GParted? I was re-arranging my partitions when
>> I saw this.
>
> It is intentional.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiB
>

        Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.

        Plus, I'm continually surprised as to how many people point to the
wikipedia site as the only source of info, despite the many instances if
it being slanted, abused, or just plain wrong. Yes, there are many
articles which may be correct, but there are enough that one has to go
somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info....

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Mario Vukelic
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:13 -0500, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>         Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.

Blame the storage manufacturers who have redefined MB for all intents
and purposes. Also, I am surprised that you have never seen it before,
it's not all that exotic.

>         Plus, I'm continually surprised as to how many people point to
> the wikipedia site as the only source of info, despite the many
> instances if it being slanted, abused,

The chances of anit-MiB nazis vandalizing this particular article are
slim ;)

> or just plain wrong. Yes, there are many
> articles which may be correct, but there are enough that one has to go
> somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info....

It's handy (just type "MiB" into the Firefox search box), easier to read
than an RFC or similar and tech articles are rarely very wrong. As a
critical reader you will have no problem finding and following the links
to outside references (and draw you conclusions if there are none or if
they contradict Wikipedia). I fail to see the problem.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:13 -0500, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>         Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.
>
> Blame the storage manufacturers who have redefined MB for all intents
> and purposes. Also, I am surprised that you have never seen it before,
> it's not all that exotic.
>

        Yeah, I've seen it before, been a very long time, though.

>>         Plus, I'm continually surprised as to how many people point to
>> the wikipedia site as the only source of info, despite the many
>> instances if it being slanted, abused,
>
> The chances of anit-MiB nazis vandalizing this particular article are
> slim ;)
>
        Yep. Just mainly commenting on wikipedia in general. Yes, this ain't
the place for it, I do realize. Couldn't help myself, I guess.

>> or just plain wrong. Yes, there are many
>> articles which may be correct, but there are enough that one has to go
>> somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info....
>
> It's handy (just type "MiB" into the Firefox search box), easier to read
> than an RFC or similar and tech articles are rarely very wrong. As a
> critical reader you will have no problem finding and following the links
> to outside references (and draw you conclusions if there are none or if
> they contradict Wikipedia). I fail to see the problem.
>
>

        Yeah, you are correct, and most technical minded people are skepitcal
enough to not completely trust wikipedia (or any sngle source, for that
matter). More just a general grump about others who claim wikipedia to
be on par with real encyclopedias.
        Again, apologies for the OT rant.

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Matthew Flaschen
In reply to this post by Dave Woyciesjes
Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
> Jason Crain wrote:
>> On Mon, February 9, 2009 12:49 pm, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>> What's with the typo in GParted? I was re-arranging my partitions when
>>> I saw this.
>> It is intentional.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiB
>>
>
> Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.

It's not sloppy.  It's compliant with IEC 60027-2, and bypasses a
longstanding ambiguity.  What's sloppy is calling something a typo and a
bug, getting corrected, and still refusing to admit you were mistaken.

> Plus, I'm continually surprised as to how many people point to the
> wikipedia site as the only source of info, despite the many instances if
> it being slanted, abused, or just plain wrong. Yes, there are many
> articles which may be correct, but there are enough that one has to go
> somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info....

Please let me know the definitive source you never have to verify
elsewhere.  I'm eager to drink from its fountain of flawless
knowledge.</sarcasm>

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>> Jason Crain wrote:
>>> On Mon, February 9, 2009 12:49 pm, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>>> What's with the typo in GParted? I was re-arranging my partitions when
>>>> I saw this.
>>> It is intentional.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiB
>>>
>> Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.
>
> It's not sloppy.  It's compliant with IEC 60027-2, and bypasses a
> longstanding ambiguity.  What's sloppy is calling something a typo and a
> bug, getting corrected, and still refusing to admit you were mistaken.

        Yes, you are correct in it being compliant. At which point did I refuse
to admit I was mistaken? Please enlighten me. Or maybe you didn't bother
to read all of what I said.

>> Plus, I'm continually surprised as to how many people point to the
>> wikipedia site as the only source of info, despite the many instances if
>> it being slanted, abused, or just plain wrong. Yes, there are many
>> articles which may be correct, but there are enough that one has to go
>> somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info....
>
> Please let me know the definitive source you never have to verify
> elsewhere.  I'm eager to drink from its fountain of flawless
> knowledge.</sarcasm>
>
        Again, putting words in my email message. I never said I had one
definitive source. What I did say, actually imply, in a different
message was that people should always be wary of what one place says is
fact.
        Also, what I'm saysig is that Wikipedia has more errors & issues than
other repositories of imformation.

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Bart Silverstrim
Dave Woyciesjes wrote:

> Again, putting words in my email message. I never said I had one
> definitive source. What I did say, actually imply, in a different
> message was that people should always be wary of what one place says is
> fact.
> Also, what I'm saysig is that Wikipedia has more errors & issues than
> other repositories of imformation.

A) Wikipedia has references to things you can't easily find in
"reputable" sources (Where do you find the history of Optimus Prime?
Hasbro? Some other...non-reputable...fansite?)

B) Wikipedia has been found to be largely on par with several of the big
boys in "reputation" in terms of average errors while providing far more
topics of reference

C) If you want to know the sources, most articles in Wikipedia include a
set of reference links to follow, or a disclaimer when there's missing
sources.

I'm so tired of hearing bull excuses about having to use "reputable"
sources when every damn source can have some angle on their news and
information. There are reporters who make crap up, and authors that make
things up in the first place passed as truth, news stories that just
give bits and pieces of a story (how many stories are flying around
about Michael Phelps now? And then every pro- and anti-pot news flash is
trying to get their piece of the pot pie?? Story: He smoked weed.
Everything else is trying to get you to sympathize with a particular
angle on the story...)

And as to the poster not having a definitive source, please don't bitch
about XYZ without offering an alternative. Otherwise it's more pointless
than bringing a wikipedia debate to an Ubuntu tech forum. If something
in the Wiki is wrong, people can feel free to correct it and find
references to refute what's stated.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
Bart Silverstrim wrote:

> Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>
>> Again, putting words in my email message. I never said I had one
>> definitive source. What I did say, actually imply, in a different
>> message was that people should always be wary of what one place says is
>> fact.
>> Also, what I'm saysig is that Wikipedia has more errors & issues than
>> other repositories of imformation.
>
> A) Wikipedia has references to things you can't easily find in
> "reputable" sources (Where do you find the history of Optimus Prime?
> Hasbro? Some other...non-reputable...fansite?)

        Not disputed.

> B) Wikipedia has been found to be largely on par with several of the big
> boys in "reputation" in terms of average errors while providing far more
> topics of reference

        Not as far as I've seen. From what I've read, it's not as reliable.

> C) If you want to know the sources, most articles in Wikipedia include a
> set of reference links to follow, or a disclaimer when there's missing
> sources.

        Yes, most articles do. They have references to back up their point of view.

> I'm so tired of hearing bull excuses about having to use "reputable"
> sources when every damn source can have some angle on their news and
> information. There are reporters who make crap up, and authors that make
> things up in the first place passed as truth, news stories that just
> give bits and pieces of a story (how many stories are flying around
> about Michael Phelps now? And then every pro- and anti-pot news flash is
> trying to get their piece of the pot pie?? Story: He smoked weed.
> Everything else is trying to get you to sympathize with a particular
> angle on the story...)

        Yes, people make stuff up. If someone says they're not biased, then
they are a lying sack of shit.

> And as to the poster not having a definitive source, please don't bitch
> about XYZ without offering an alternative. Otherwise it's more pointless
> than bringing a wikipedia debate to an Ubuntu tech forum. If something
> in the Wiki is wrong, people can feel free to correct it and find
> references to refute what's stated.

        I never bitched about not having a definitive source. I merely stated
my opinion that wikipedia is not always as trustworthy as their
followers make it out to be.
        Do make note that I said "my opinion" in the above paragraph.

        Yes, complaining about something without suggesting an option is
stupid. Same as bringing an OT debate here. Which isn't what I did.
        Please re-read my third message on this topic, dated 2/9/2009 15:54PM
(EST) where I did recognize that wikipedia is OT here; I stated that I
was putting in my _opinion_; and apologized for the 'rant' of sorts.
        I would've let it go (this thread), but when someone inserts meaning
into my message that wasn't there; or attacks me in anyway, I will
defend myself.

        If you're in anyway confused about my message, please ask politely,
like an adult; and I will do my best to explain and reply in kind. Let's
just keep this civil, shall we?

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Johnny Rosenberg
In reply to this post by Bart Silverstrim

I am one of those who think it's important to separate MB from MiB (and GB from GiB etc etc), just for the simple reason that there is a big difference. It's not htat hard either: 1 MB = 10⁶ bytes = 1000000 bytes, 1 MiB = 2²⁰ bytes = 1048576 bytes.

However, I can't really say that I can see clearly why MiB is necessary these days. Why not just skip it and only use MB, GB and so on, really meaning MB, GB and so on? All hard drives capacity are in MB, GB or TB anyway, not MiB, GiB or TiB.

What's wrong with saying 65,6 kB instead of 64,0 KiB? My interna drive in this old laptop is 160 GB, so why would I say 149 GiB?

Just skip the binary prefixes and use the good old decimal ones. It's not that complicated for anyone with a brain.

And, as a parallel in the "real" world, I still don't understand why people say things like 325800 km rather than 325.8 Mm, which is the same thing but the latter is shorter and better.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Bart Silverstrim
In reply to this post by Dave Woyciesjes
Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim wrote:

>> B) Wikipedia has been found to be largely on par with several of the big
>> boys in "reputation" in terms of average errors while providing far more
>> topics of reference
>
> Not as far as I've seen. From what I've read, it's not as reliable.

You could google for the controversial article published by Nature
regarding a study of Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica, circa 2006.
It caused quite a stir from both sides, and Wikipedia even instituted
more safeguards afterwards, but I think the initial results are worth
your interest if you wish to pursue the topic.

>> And as to the poster not having a definitive source, please don't bitch
>> about XYZ without offering an alternative. Otherwise it's more pointless
>> than bringing a wikipedia debate to an Ubuntu tech forum. If something
>> in the Wiki is wrong, people can feel free to correct it and find
>> references to refute what's stated.
>
> I never bitched about not having a definitive source. I merely stated
> my opinion that wikipedia is not always as trustworthy as their
> followers make it out to be.
> Do make note that I said "my opinion" in the above paragraph.

Saying it's not as trustworthy is something, opinion or not, that
deserves to be substantiated. You can't just dismiss it from potentially
stirring up ire by disclaiming it as an opinion any more than you can
say "That guy's a jerk! :-)" and claim you didn't mean anything by it
because of a smiley.

In dealing in an industry where we routinely have academics swinging on
both sides of the issue (you can't use Wikipedia for research because
it's inaccurate! Anyone can do anything!...well, did you alter it?...no?
Then what's preventing you from spoofing authoritative sources to pass
as original works or falsifying information??) this isn't something that
just passes as a brain hiccup. It can influence people's reputations and
hard work. So maybe it's not an issue for you any more than you shed a
tear for hitting a squirrel on your way to work, but it's not
necessarily an insignificant issue for others.

> Yes, complaining about something without suggesting an option is
> stupid. Same as bringing an OT debate here. Which isn't what I did.
> Please re-read my third message on this topic, dated 2/9/2009 15:54PM
> (EST) where I did recognize that wikipedia is OT here; I stated that I
> was putting in my _opinion_; and apologized for the 'rant' of sorts.

I apologize if you believe that my statements were entirely targeting
you, in reality only a portion was. I was ranting as well about, as I
stated, people bringing up inaccuracy of Wikipedia with little or no
substantive proof of it; I have people making rules and rejecting it as
a research source when in fact they've not had any proof that it is more
or less informative than any other source. They simply assume.

And unless I'm mistaken, you brought the rant up in the first place,
bringing the topic here. If you define bringing the OT debate by the
initial statements of the topic, I think you did bring it here; if you
define it as the first person to "take the bait", then I did.

> I would've let it go (this thread), but when someone inserts meaning
> into my message that wasn't there; or attacks me in anyway, I will
> defend myself.

I'll assume you're referring to the post immediately following yours? I
don't think I sent that...I don't recall inserting words into your
statements, although there are implications to what you sent initially
that can be reasonably inferred.

> If you're in anyway confused about my message, please ask politely,
> like an adult; and I will do my best to explain and reply in kind. Let's
> just keep this civil, shall we?

I was ranting on the topic and only portions actually were directed at
your posting, as I explained above. The ambiguousness of the references
were my fault, unless you're taking issue with those portions that
directly referenced you.

*shrug* as far as I'm concerned I've said my piece. Or is that peace?
Anything more will risk incurring the wrath of the listmoms. If you want
to discuss it then feel free to email me...otherwise I hold no ill will
towards you, and hope you feel likewise.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Bart Silverstrim
In reply to this post by Johnny Rosenberg
Johnny Rosenberg wrote:

> However, I can't really say that I can see clearly why MiB is necessary
> these days. Why not just skip it and only use MB, GB and so on, really
> meaning MB, GB and so on? All hard drives capacity are in MB, GB or TB
> anyway, not MiB, GiB or TiB.
>
> What's wrong with saying 65,6 kB instead of 64,0 KiB? My interna drive in
> this old laptop is 160 GB, so why would I say 149 GiB?

Dr. Pulaski: "Date-a, dah-ta, what's the difference?"
Commander Data: "...One is my name. The other is not."

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
In reply to this post by Johnny Rosenberg
Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> I am one of those who think it's important to separate MB from MiB (and
> GB from GiB etc etc), just for the simple reason that there is a big
> difference. It's not htat hard either: 1 MB = 10⁶ bytes = 1000000 bytes,
> 1 MiB = 2²⁰ bytes = 1048576 bytes.

        Agreed.

> However, I can't really say that I can see clearly why MiB is necessary
> these days. Why not just skip it and only use MB, GB and so on, really
> meaning MB, GB and so on? All hard drives capacity are in MB, GB or TB
> anyway, not MiB, GiB or TiB.
>
> What's wrong with saying 65,6 kB instead of 64,0 KiB? My interna drive
> in this old laptop is 160 GB, so why would I say 149 GiB?

        Because 10GB is a fair amount of storage space. Who wants to pay
for/plan on space that they're not getting?

> Just skip the binary prefixes and use the good old decimal ones. It's
> not that complicated for anyone with a brain.

        No comment...

> And, as a parallel in the "real" world, I still don't understand why
> people say things like 325800 km rather than 325.8 Mm, which is the same
> thing but the latter is shorter and better.

        Not exactly a parallel. MiB vs. MB has to do with the various ways bits
& bytes are counted; decimal & binary.
        Meters are meters, always decimal.

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Mario Vukelic
In reply to this post by Johnny Rosenberg
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 19:03 +0100, Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> However, I can't really say that I can see clearly why MiB is
> necessary these days. Why not just skip it and only use MB, GB and so
> on, really meaning MB, GB and so on?

As I said before to Dave, go complain to the hardware manufacturers who
redefined GB to mean 1000 MB in order to be able to claim bigger sizes
on the packages

> All hard drives capacity are in MB, GB or TB anyway, not MiB, GiB or
> TiB.

Not where I live. The *claim* to be "320 GB" or something on the
packaging, but that's really the 1000 MB variant and the small print
says so.

> What's wrong with saying 65,6 kB instead of 64,0 KiB? My interna drive
> in this old laptop is 160 GB, so why would I say 149 GiB?

Have you verified that?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Dave Woyciesjes
In reply to this post by Bart Silverstrim
Bart Silverstrim wrote:

> Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>
>>> B) Wikipedia has been found to be largely on par with several of the big
>>> boys in "reputation" in terms of average errors while providing far more
>>> topics of reference
>> Not as far as I've seen. From what I've read, it's not as reliable.
>
> You could google for the controversial article published by Nature
> regarding a study of Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica, circa 2006.
> It caused quite a stir from both sides, and Wikipedia even instituted
> more safeguards afterwards, but I think the initial results are worth
> your interest if you wish to pursue the topic.

        Thank you, I shall dig it up when I get the chance. For those who are
curious:
Nature's article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Britannica's Response:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

And Wikipedia articles on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_succeeding

>>> And as to the poster not having a definitive source, please don't bitch
>>> about XYZ without offering an alternative. Otherwise it's more pointless
>>> than bringing a wikipedia debate to an Ubuntu tech forum. If something
>>> in the Wiki is wrong, people can feel free to correct it and find
>>> references to refute what's stated.
>> I never bitched about not having a definitive source. I merely stated
>> my opinion that wikipedia is not always as trustworthy as their
>> followers make it out to be.
>> Do make note that I said "my opinion" in the above paragraph.
>
> Saying it's not as trustworthy is something, opinion or not, that
> deserves to be substantiated. You can't just dismiss it from potentially
> stirring up ire by disclaiming it as an opinion any more than you can
> say "That guy's a jerk! :-)" and claim you didn't mean anything by it
> because of a smiley.

        I knew there would be folks who disagree. That's normal. I figured
people here would see it as my two cents; and OT; and dismiss it as
such. Asking too much I guess. Considering the way the "su/sudo"
discussions go here, I should've known better, I guess.

> In dealing in an industry where we routinely have academics swinging on
> both sides of the issue (you can't use Wikipedia for research because
> it's inaccurate! Anyone can do anything!...well, did you alter it?...no?
> Then what's preventing you from spoofing authoritative sources to pass
> as original works or falsifying information??) this isn't something that
> just passes as a brain hiccup. It can influence people's reputations and
> hard work. So maybe it's not an issue for you any more than you shed a
> tear for hitting a squirrel on your way to work, but it's not
> necessarily an insignificant issue for others.

        Honestly, not being sarcastic or snide; I'm not getting the relevance
of this paragraph.

>> Yes, complaining about something without suggesting an option is
>> stupid. Same as bringing an OT debate here. Which isn't what I did.
>> Please re-read my third message on this topic, dated 2/9/2009 15:54PM
>> (EST) where I did recognize that wikipedia is OT here; I stated that I
>> was putting in my _opinion_; and apologized for the 'rant' of sorts.
>
> I apologize if you believe that my statements were entirely targeting
> you, in reality only a portion was. I was ranting as well about, as I
> stated, people bringing up inaccuracy of Wikipedia with little or no
> substantive proof of it; I have people making rules and rejecting it as
> a research source when in fact they've not had any proof that it is more
> or less informative than any other source. They simply assume.

        Okay, understood. There was a previous post that did poke at me
directly, and I forgot to take a breath after dealing with that one.

> And unless I'm mistaken, you brought the rant up in the first place,
> bringing the topic here. If you define bringing the OT debate by the
> initial statements of the topic, I think you did bring it here; if you
> define it as the first person to "take the bait", then I did.

        Good point.

>> I would've let it go (this thread), but when someone inserts meaning
>> into my message that wasn't there; or attacks me in anyway, I will
>> defend myself.
>
> I'll assume you're referring to the post immediately following yours? I
> don't think I sent that...I don't recall inserting words into your
> statements, although there are implications to what you sent initially
> that can be reasonably inferred.

        Yeah, the one before yours. As noted above, I usually take a pause
after I issue rebuttals.

>> If you're in anyway confused about my message, please ask politely,
>> like an adult; and I will do my best to explain and reply in kind. Let's
>> just keep this civil, shall we?
>
> I was ranting on the topic and only portions actually were directed at
> your posting, as I explained above. The ambiguousness of the references
> were my fault, unless you're taking issue with those portions that
> directly referenced you.
>
> *shrug* as far as I'm concerned I've said my piece. Or is that peace?
> Anything more will risk incurring the wrath of the listmoms. If you want
> to discuss it then feel free to email me...otherwise I hold no ill will
> towards you, and hope you feel likewise.
>

        Agreed. We've said our "peice" to each other, and here we say "peace".
Yep, if anyone wants to continue this, off-list it goes...

--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Thomas Kaiser (ubuntu)
In reply to this post by Johnny Rosenberg
Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> I am one of those who think it's important to separate MB from MiB (and
> GB from GiB etc etc), just for the simple reason that there is a big
> difference. It's not htat hard either: 1 MB = 10^(6) bytes = 1000000 bytes,
> 1 MiB = 2²^(0) bytes = 1048576 bytes.
>
> However, I can't really say that I can see clearly why MiB is necessary
> these days.

Because the base is 8 (Octal)? 1 Byte are 8 Bit.

Thomas




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Derek Broughton-2
In reply to this post by Dave Woyciesjes
Dave Woyciesjes wrote:

> Jason Crain wrote:
>> On Mon, February 9, 2009 12:49 pm, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>> What's with the typo in GParted? I was re-arranging my partitions when
>>> I saw this.
>>
>> It is intentional.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiB
>>
>
> Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.
>
> Plus, I'm continually surprised as to how many people point to the
> wikipedia site as the only source of info, despite the many instances if
> it being slanted, abused, or just plain wrong.

In the first place, a neutral third party determined that it was no worse
than Encyclopedia Brittannica...

> Yes, there are many
> articles which may be correct, but there are enough that one has to go
> somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info....

Except that in this case, Wikipedia is 100% right.  Do you direct people to
resources you haven't checked?  I admit I sometimes do - but I always say
so.  If I _know_ wikipedia has it right, I'm always going to send people
there.  

I'm really surprised you have never come across MiB before - it shows up in
far more places than GParted on an Ubuntu install.
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Derek Broughton-2
In reply to this post by Dave Woyciesjes
Dave Woyciesjes wrote:

> Also, what I'm saysig is that Wikipedia has more errors & issues than
> other repositories of imformation.

I don't need you to prove that - just give me as many citations as a
Wikipedia page requires.
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Matthew Flaschen
In reply to this post by Dave Woyciesjes
Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>>> Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell.
>> It's not sloppy.  It's compliant with IEC 60027-2, and bypasses a
>> longstanding ambiguity.  What's sloppy is calling something a typo and a
>> bug, getting corrected, and still refusing to admit you were mistaken.
>
> Yes, you are correct in it being compliant. At which point did I refuse
> to admit I was mistaken?

The part where you said, "Feh. Still looks as sloppy as all hell."  Or
am I supposed to interpret that as, "Oops.  My bad.  I guess GParted is
completely correct about this."

> Please enlighten me. Or maybe you didn't bother
> to read all of what I said.

Actually I did.

> Again, putting words in my email message. I never said I had one
> definitive source.

I didn't put any words anywhere.  /You/ said, "there are enough that one
has to go somewhere else to ensure the validity if the info".  /All/
sources should be independently validated, not just Wikipedia.

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MiB in gparted?

Matthew Flaschen
In reply to this post by Johnny Rosenberg
Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> I am one of those who think it's important to separate MB from MiB (and GB
> from GiB etc etc), just for the simple reason that there is a big
> difference. It's not htat hard either: 1 MB = 10⁶ bytes = 1000000 bytes, 1
> MiB = 2²⁰ bytes = 1048576 bytes.
>
> However, I can't really say that I can see clearly why MiB is necessary
> these days. Why not just skip it and only use MB, GB and so on, really
> meaning MB, GB and so on?

Because base-10 prefixes are totally disconnected from the way computers
actually operate.  For instance, you'll never (disclaimer: never say
never) find a 500 byte block size.

Matt Flaschen


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
12