Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93881 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 15:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-20 11:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 72 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:45 +0000
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-16 16:56 +0100
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:08 +0000
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Cóilín Nioclásín Glostéir <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-10-16 19:13 +0000
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 13:29 +0000
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 13:51 +0000
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 14:19 +0000
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 19:37 +0200
Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:25 +0100
Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-18 11:57 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:20 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:31 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:35 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 18:45 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:41 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-19 00:57 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-19 09:26 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-19 14:17 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:11 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:52 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:56 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 05:58 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:41 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-19 03:03 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:49 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 11:49 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:29 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-20 01:59 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:15 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 00:44 -0400
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 11:54 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 20:27 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:38 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:26 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 18:59 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 20:36 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 09:08 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 18:55 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:05 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:41 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-10-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:02 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:18 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-20 01:52 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:39 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 11:48 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:42 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:20 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-10-20 08:39 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 07:53 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 10:38 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 20:49 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:21 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:04 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-18 14:07 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-18 19:27 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:30 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:06 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:05 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-18 19:37 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:20 +0000
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:40 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 21:00 +0200
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 03:03 +0100
Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:40 +0100
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 11:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <11b3451$1d9sl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94198 |
On 10/18/2026 07:07, Leroy H wrote: >[...] > Then there is the issue of manufacturing. Converting a large industrial base, > such as in the US, willy-nilly to SI units is a very expensive undertaking. On the other hand, NOT joining the world standards has its own cost. Back in the 1980s, at a PPOE, we licensed a design for an electronic device. Having been designed in Scotland, of course all mechanical dimensions were given in millimeters. An older manufacturing manager wanted it "Americanized" and directed a summer intern to convert all dimensions to "traditional" measures. The kid got out a calculator and converted all measurements to inches with 3 decimals. When they took it to the metal shop, the shop foreman asked if they really needed the dimensions exact to 0.001" ? No, of course not, that would be way too expensive. So the old guy replaced all the measurements to fractional inches instead. The resulting product never worked right, but had bad fits between the PCBs and the card cage, betwwen the chassis frame and the side, top and bottom panels, and felt warped when customers tried to mount it in a rack. Of course, it was all stupid. The machine shop where they built it had mostly Japanese machinery, which could do inces or millimeters at the flick of a switch. > For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial > dimensions. The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, is > still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet. I highly doubt > that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions. The saw mills are too old > to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to think differently. Your example is a little odd, because a "2 by 4" is NOT 2 inches by 4 inches and has not been for decades. A standard 2x4 lumber has actual dimensions of 1.5 inches thick by 3.5 inches wide (38 mm × 89 mm). This principle applies to other dimensional lumber as well, such as 2x6, 2x8, and 4x4, where the actual dimensions are slightly smaller than the nominal size to account for finishing processes. > Also, most raw materials such as pipes, tubing, and other parts are still > produced in Imperial units because most everything classified as buildings > or infrastructure was built according to Imperial specs. > > It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric. Jimmy Carter started, but Reagan reversed the process. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <18dfb65996728c15$2363$2483150$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #94208 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:45:50 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote: > > Your example is a little odd, because a "2 by 4" is NOT 2 inches by 4 > inches and has not been for decades. > > A standard 2x4 lumber has actual dimensions of 1.5 inches thick by 3.5 > inches wide (38 mm × 89 mm). > The cutting dimensions at the saw mill are 2" X 4". After cutting, however, the lumber is dried in kilns which shrinks the dimensions. But the size of the lumber throughout the distribution chain is always based on the original saw mill cutting dimensions. One never walks into a lumber yard and asks for a "1.5 X 3.5." It is always "2 X 4." The same applies to all other lumber products. It is a peculiar system but one gets used to it. >> >> It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric. > > Jimmy Carter started, but Reagan reversed the process. > What I find somewhat amusing is that, like most other DIY people, I was forced to purchase a set of metric sockets (at great expense). Each socket is forged on one end to be a specific metric size (e.g. 10mm) but the reverse end, where the shaft of the socket wrench attaches, is forged to an Imperial unit (e.g. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch). The tools are actually a hybrid. If a society is forced to go metric it should go metric all the way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 02:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <njldmkFei39U43@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94220 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 19:27:52 +0000, Leroy H wrote: > What I find somewhat amusing is that, like most other DIY people, I was > forced to purchase a set of metric sockets (at great expense). > > Each socket is forged on one end to be a specific metric size (e.g. > 10mm) > but the reverse end, where the shaft of the socket wrench attaches, is > forged to an Imperial unit (e.g. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch). I've got a couple of sets of metric sockets but I don't recall either being at great expense. What I find annoying is the number of metric and SAE sockets that are almost but not quite the same dimension. That's a real joy when you're working on a US vehicle that mixed and matched. Then there was Harley when they went to Torx fasteners. Most of the early Torx sets went T20, T25, T30 etc. Harley threw a few T27s in at odd places. A T25 almost works before it strips out the head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 02:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) |
| Message-ID | <11b3tvm$1lgro$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94208 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:45:50 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On the other hand, NOT joining the world standards has its own cost. One odd thing is, most of the countries in the world use Imperial units for air traffic control. That is, heights are given in feet, even across Europe and other metric-using countries. (Not sure about speeds.) That is, with two exceptions: Russia and China. Fly over those countries, and they give heights in metres. Do you think this causes confusion, and possible risk of getting things wrong? I don’t think so. The safety margins are routinely on the order of distances measured in large fractions of kilometres (or miles, if you prefer). So a rounding error here or there won’t really make much difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <njkjkcFei39U31@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94198 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:07:31 +0000, Leroy H wrote: > For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial > dimensions. The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, > is still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet. I highly > doubt that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions. The saw mills > are too old to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to > think differently. Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <18dfb69ff983b00f$2364$2483150$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #94214 |
On 18 Oct 2026 19:05:48 GMT, rbowman wrote: > > Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately. > That's all one *can* buy. Trying walking into a lumber yard and asking for a 1.5 x 3.5. The sales clerks will call 9-1-1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <11b3759$11c73$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #94223 |
In article <18dfb69ff983b00f$2364$2483150$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> wrote: >On 18 Oct 2026 19:05:48 GMT, rbowman wrote: > >> >> Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately. >> > >That's all one *can* buy. > >Trying walking into a lumber yard and asking for >a 1.5 x 3.5. The sales clerks will call 9-1-1. Well. I'm going to have to try that sometime. -- The plural of "anecdote" is _not_ "data".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 02:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <njld3bFei39U42@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94223 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 19:32:54 +0000, Leroy H wrote: > On 18 Oct 2026 19:05:48 GMT, rbowman wrote: > > >> Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately. >> >> > That's all one *can* buy. > > Trying walking into a lumber yard and asking for a 1.5 x 3.5. The sales > clerks will call 9-1-1. You also have to be careful if you want something 8' long. Many are precut to 92 5/8" to allow for the top and bottom plates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <11b37c5$1dsuc$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94214 |
On 18/10/2026 20:05, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:07:31 +0000, Leroy H wrote: > >> For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial >> dimensions. The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, >> is still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet. I highly >> doubt that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions. The saw mills >> are too old to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to >> think differently. > > Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately. In the UK they are 2x4 but they call it 100mm x 50mm Planed All Round (PAR) so its actually about 40mm x 80mm It is exactly the same wood that used to be 2x4. But its had the SI gender chagne applied -- There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 21:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <0v5iqmxg49.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94198 |
On 2026-10-18 16:07, Leroy H wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:57:54 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> >> I.e., what I'm saying is that there actually are quite a few arguments to >> be made that US/Imperial is actually better. >> > > The metric system was imposed, i.e. forced, whereas the Imperial units are > traditional and hence far more natural. > > Forcing an entire society to change is never a good idea. It was a wonderful idea. I glanced at a dictionary my British grandfather used to deal with Spanish units. Lots of pages explaining the many units used in Spain. Be aware that in Spain a city could use different units than the next, but certainly a region (an old kingdom) would have different units than any other region in Spain. So Spain embraced the SI with glee, somewhere at the start of the XX. Asking chatgpt for a summary. Q: Talk to about the multitude of units used in Spain before they embraced the metric system, as was called then. When did that happen? # Spain before the metric system: a world of local measures Before Spain adopted the metric system, measuring something was a much more complicated business than it is today. A farmer selling wheat, a merchant measuring cloth, a builder laying out a house, and a muleteer transporting wine might all use different units. Even when they used the same name for a unit, its value could vary from one town or region to another. Spain did not have one perfectly uniform system of measurement. It had a patchwork of traditional Castilian units, older Roman-derived measures, local customs, and regional systems in places such as Catalonia, Valencia, Aragon, Navarre and Galicia. The change to the metric system was therefore not simply a matter of changing names. It was an attempt to make commerce, taxation, engineering and scientific work consistent across the country. ## 1. When did Spain adopt the metric system? # 1791 France creates the new system The French Revolution's National Assembly approved the metric system, designed around decimal multiples and subdivisions. # 1801 Spain attempts to standardise its traditional measures The Spanish monarchy unified and regulated many Castilian measures, but this did not eliminate all the regional differences. # 1849 The decisive date: 19 July 1849 Queen Isabella II sanctioned Spain's Ley de Pesas y Medidas, establishing the Sistema Métrico Decimal as the national system. Mineco Portal +1 # 1852 Conversion tables are published The authorities published official correspondences between traditional local measures and metric units, helping people make the transition. Mineco Portal +1 There is an important distinction here: 1849 was the year of legal adoption, not the year when everybody suddenly stopped using the old measures. Traditional units survived in some places well into the twentieth century. Mineco Portal +1 ## 2. The extraordinary variety of Spanish units Here are some of the most interesting units you would have encountered in Spain before metrication. La vara: origen, medidas y equivalencias - MD Pajedrez ### Vara Length A traditional measuring rod used for cloth, construction and land measurement. The Castilian vara de Burgos was approximately 0.836 metres. Other regional standards differed; the Catalan cana, for example, was much longer. NIST +1 asociación de vecinos y amigos de VELLOSILLO: Equivalencias del sistema de medidas con el sistema métrico decimal ### Libra Weight The traditional pound. A Castilian libra was approximately 460 grams, although local values varied. It was divided into smaller units such as the onza (ounce). The word survives today in Spanish expressions and historical recipes. ▷ Medida de Vino jarra de Tajueco media cántara ### Arroba Weight or capacity One of the most confusing units because it could measure different things. An arroba of weight was commonly 25 Castilian libras, approximately 11.5 kg. For wine and oil, however, an arroba was a unit of volume, and the conversion depended on the product and locality. ANTIGUO ALMUD, MEDIDA DE CEREAL o GRANO de segunda mano por 60 EUR en Barcelona en WALLAPOP ### Fanega Grain and land A farmer might use a fanega to measure grain, but the same word could describe a unit of agricultural land. In the Castilian standard, a fanega of grain was about 55.5 litres, while a fanega of land was about 6,460 m². The local definitions were not universal. Wikipedia +1 Camino Real de Madrid a Guadalupe ### Legua Distance A league, used for journeys and distances between places. The commonly used Castilian league was approximately 5.57 kilometres, although historical definitions and practical usage were not always consistent. Centro Español de Metrología +1 ## 3. What made the old system so complicated? The real problem was not simply the number of units. It was that the same unit name could mean different quantities in different places. The Spanish Ministry of Economy describes how a vara, libra, arroba or fanega could have different values even in neighbouring towns. That created difficulties for interregional trade and opportunities for disputes or fraud. Mineco Portal Imagine buying grain in one town and selling it in another. You might discover that the local fanega used by your supplier did not correspond to the fanega understood by your customer. You could not safely assume that the same name meant the same quantity. The traditional system also used subdivisions that were not consistently decimal. A measurement might be divided into 12 parts, 16 parts, halves or quarters, depending on the unit. The metric system offered a much simpler principle: move between units by multiplying or dividing by ten. ## 4. What about Murcia and the rest of southeastern Spain? The regional differences are particularly interesting if we look at historical records from the Mediterranean coast. An official Spanish conversion table published in 1851, for example, records the cana used in Girona as 1.559 metres, while the vara used in Granada followed the Castilian standard. It also lists local measures for wine, oil, grain and agricultural land. BOE This is a reminder that the old system was not just a list of measurements. It was a collection of regional traditions shaped by agriculture, trade, local administration and history. In southeastern Spain, as elsewhere, historical land records and agricultural documents may therefore use traditional units whose exact values need to be established from the particular municipality or document. It is risky to convert every old fanega, tahúlla, arroba or celemín using a single nationwide figure. ## 5. How long did the transition take? The metric system required more than legislation. People had to learn new units, merchants needed new weights and measures, and officials had to publish conversion tables and enforce the new standards. Spain's experience illustrates the difference between adopting a system on paper and changing everyday habits. The authorities were still publishing detailed local conversion tables in the early 1850s, and older measures continued in some communities long after that. Mineco Portal +1 The historical significance of the change is easy to underestimate. It helped establish a common language for trade, engineering, science and public administration across a country whose local measurement traditions had developed over centuries. In short: Spain legally adopted the decimal metric system on 19 July 1849, under Isabella II. But the old measures did not vanish overnight, and their regional diversity remains a fascinating part of Spain's agricultural, commercial and architectural history. For further reading, the Spanish Ministry of Economy has a particularly useful historical resource: [La introducción del sistema métrico decimal en España](<https://portal.mineco.gob.es/es-es/ministerio/publicaciones/gratuitas/Paginas/La_introduccion_del_sistema_metrico_decimal_en_Espana__Cartel_de_1868.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com>), which reproduces an 1868 explanatory poster showing how the traditional units corresponded to the new metric measures. > To force SI units > in the laboratory, among professional scientists, may be an easy switch, but > to expect the general, unwashed, population to immediately embrace a new system > of units is folly. > > Keep SI in the lab and let the common folk do as they always have done. > > Then there is the issue of manufacturing. Converting a large industrial base, > such as in the US, willy-nilly to SI units is a very expensive undertaking. > > For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial > dimensions. The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, is > still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet. I highly doubt > that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions. The saw mills are too old > to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to think differently. > > Also, most raw materials such as pipes, tubing, and other parts are still > produced in Imperial units because most everything classified as buildings > or infrastructure was built according to Imperial specs. > > It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric. > > Ah, the colonies are so backward... :-P -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 03:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial |
| Message-ID | <11b6i4s$2jehe$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94198 |
On 2026-10-18, Leroy H wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:57:54 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> >> I.e., what I'm saying is that there actually are quite a few arguments to >> be made that US/Imperial is actually better. >> > > The metric system was imposed, i.e. forced, whereas the Imperial units are > traditional and hence far more natural. > > Forcing an entire society to change is never a good idea. To force SI units > in the laboratory, among professional scientists, may be an easy switch, but > to expect the general, unwashed, population to immediately embrace a new system > of units is folly. This argument is probably seen as quite stupid when considered by people who have witnessed several countries change currencies when ECU-turned-EUR coins and banknotes became legal tender and the previous currencies were phased out. This has been done, with currencies and with other units. Inflation also means the "measurements" of currency just keep changing with time. So it's not like people aren't used to measurements changing either. > Keep SI in the lab and let the common folk do as they always have > done. "the common folk do as they have always done" means using SI outside of the lab for most of the world. > Then there is the issue of manufacturing. Converting a large industrial base, > such as in the US, willy-nilly to SI units is a very expensive > undertaking. I'd not be surprised if some of these already used SI units... -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 11:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) |
| Message-ID | <11b7gf3$onhs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94198 |
On 10/18/26 15:07, Leroy H wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:57:54 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> >> I.e., what I'm saying is that there actually are quite a few arguments to >> be made that US/Imperial is actually better. >> > > The metric system was imposed, i.e. forced, whereas the Imperial units are > traditional and hence far more natural. > > Forcing an entire society to change is never a good idea. To force SI units > in the laboratory, among professional scientists, may be an easy switch, but > to expect the general, unwashed, population to immediately embrace a new system > of units is folly. > This is nonsense. Imperial measurements were forced too. Weights and measurements were enforced before Imperial, too. In the UK uniform standards are mentioned in Magna Carta. Simplified trade needs standard weights, fungibility. Edward III established statutory weights and measures.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web