Subject: Re: "k"bytes or "K"bytes?
To: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/24/1999 11:48:17
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Greg A. Woods wrote:
# [ On Sunday, October 24, 1999 at 11:21:22 (-0400), der Mouse wrote: ]
# > Subject: Re: "k"bytes or "K"bytes?
# > I have seen it said that proper SI usage is to use upper case for
# > positive powers of ten (deca-, hecta-, kilo-, mega-, etc) and lower
# > case for negative powers of ten (deci-, centi-, milli-, micro-, etc).
# Yes, I believe upper case abbreviations are preferred (or perhaps even
# required) by SI for metric measurements.
10^|N| measurements, yes, except that kilo is the exception to the rule.
I learned it as 'k' in 1974 when we were starting to learn the metric
# I strongly prefer that the abbreviations for kilobytes be written as
# 'KB', kilobits as 'Kb', etc.
I don't really care, but kbps or kBps seems actually easier for me to type
# I suppose the case difference only really matters for 'mega-'
# vs. 'milli-', and since a 'millibit', or even a 'millibyte' doesn't
# really exist this differentiation doesn't really matter. Of course the
# appearance of uppper case does help indicate that the prefix is a
# multiplier -- it makes things bigger. In any case I believe the need
# for consistency with SI in the abbreviations is paramount here even
# though "our" kilo isn't exactly 1000! ;-)
SI says 'k', not 'K'.
# The whole idea of accounting for computer storage in units of 1000
# bytes, or even worse 1000 bits, is so alien, disgusting, and meaningless
# to me that I'd prefer just to stomp it out! ;-) I sure don't want to
# give it any credence by commonly refering to it as 'kB' or 'kb'
We, then, need to teach this to the disk manufacturers who list them as
"18GB" when they really mean "18,000,000,000 bytes" (which is 16.8GB as we
(and 'df') know it).
NetBSD: Perpetual performance!