Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #180830 > unrolled thread

Re: Download Manager

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Download Manager "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-05-08 10:20 +0200
    Re: Download Manager <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-05-08 11:00 +0200
      Re: Download Manager "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-05-08 12:00 +0200
        Re: Download Manager Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2017-05-08 12:30 +0200
          Re: Download Manager "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-05-08 14:50 +0200
        Re: Download Manager <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-05-08 12:40 +0200
        Re: Download Manager deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 20:00 +0200
    Re: Download Manager Peter Ludikovsky <peter@ludikovsky.name> - 2017-05-08 12:50 +0200

#180830 — Re: Download Manager

Hi,

Ashok Inder:
> Have a look at the attachments, Randomly downloaded a file, 87mb file
> turned out to be 91mb file.
> ... 1.png ... 2.png ...

That's simply the ambiguity between merchants' and physicists' MB and
programmers' MiB.
The image 2.png says "91.2 MB (9,11,79,280 bytes)". Ignoring the strange
commas in the byte number one can compute

  91179280 / 1024 / 1024 = 86.95533752441406

which matches the "87.0 MiB" shown in image 1.png.

So the only problem is in the commas.
The programmers of both tools were even so nice to properly mark their
numbers as "MB" and "MiB". One can still see lots of "MB" in other programs
which should actually be "MiB".


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#180831

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:19:47AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:

[...]

> That's simply the ambiguity between merchants' and physicists' MB and
> programmers' MiB.

"Merchant's MB". Thomas, you made my day again.

May I use that quote from time to time?

> Have a nice day :)

Yeah, as I said :^)

cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlkQM1sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZXPQCfW6sAoOFDWjokTGRI3UxkkQxd
GVwAnRZTE87Q7jR/Ke8KfDclZxNvmw5z
=kRzn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180835

Hi,

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> "Merchant's MB". [...]
> May I use that quote from time to time?

Sure. It's a translation from ancient german "Verkaeufermeg", an expression
from the time when the disks reached gigabyte sizes and the disk sellers
began to count in SI units, which gave them 7.4 percent larger numbers.
Up to then, only SI purists like physics teachers insisted that kilo is
1000 and not 1024.

Blu-ray discs labels say "25 GB" but the media offer only 25025314816 bytes,
which shows that the thrifty merchants give us not more than 17 floppies
of programmer's rebate.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180837

Le 08/05/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
>
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> "Merchant's MB". [...]
>> May I use that quote from time to time?
>
> Sure. It's a translation from ancient german "Verkaeufermeg", an expression
> from the time when the disks reached gigabyte sizes and the disk sellers
> began to count in SI units, which gave them 7.4 percent larger numbers.

Disks capacity was labelled with SI prefixes (not units, byte|octet are 
not SI units) before it reached gigabyte sizes. The smaller hard disk 
drive I still have is labelled 270 MB, and its capacity is 270,054,400 
bytes (CHS 959*11*50). My other under-GB hard disks are labelled similarly.

> Up to then, only SI purists like physics teachers insisted that kilo is
> 1000 and not 1024.

Not only SI purists but also networking/telecom guys. 1 kbit/s has 
always been consistantly 1000 bits per second.

> Blu-ray discs labels say "25 GB" but the media offer only 25025314816 bytes,
> which shows that the thrifty merchants give us not more than 17 floppies
> of programmer's rebate.

So you get what's advertised. What are you complaining about ?
Do you just miss the old time when 74' CD-Rs were labelled 650 MB but 
actually contained 650 MiB/680 MB ? I had some CD which were accurately 
labelled 680 MB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180845

Hi,

Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> So you get what's advertised. What are you complaining about ?

There ain't no gifts any more.


> Do you just miss the old time when 74' CD-Rs were labelled 650 MB but
> actually contained 650 MiB/680 MB ?

Yeah. That was when a whole GNU/Linux did fit on a single CD.

I also miss the old times when one could buy a lollypop for 5 pfennig.
The only thing that eases nostalgy is my 4x3.5 MHz Xeon with 16 GiB RAM
and a little pile of BD burners on top of it.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180839

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:55:02AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > "Merchant's MB". [...]
> > May I use that quote from time to time?
> 
> Sure. It's a translation from ancient german "Verkaeufermeg", an expression
> from the time when the disks reached gigabyte sizes [...]

Yeah, living in Germany for quite a while I can connect to that history.
Still, your English version, with this aliteration is a small gem :)

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlkQSTcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaP/wCfWPSU46ZQaEcpxS4HuEYy4zQt
5KAAnjNVSkXoB9HB3lP8tdHgUU2OJGjm
=AVgX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180856

Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> Blu-ray discs labels say "25 GB" but the media offer only 25025314816
> bytes, which shows that the thrifty merchants give us not more than 17
> floppies of programmer's rebate.

Same for some memory. It turned out in a system audit, when the team
assigned 16GB of memory to 4 machines, the audit program reported the
system as over provisioned. After some "looking into it" the team found out
it had actually 62GiB RAM. Since then they assign 4x15 and 2 left for the
OS.

Cool story

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180840

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 05/08/2017 10:19 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> The image 2.png says "91.2 MB (9,11,79,280 bytes)". Ignoring the strange
> commas in the byte number one can compute

That's probably due to the Indian numbering system[0] being used, which
groups digits above 9,999 in twos.

Regards,
/peter

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web