[FFmpeg-devel] GSoC with FFMpeg waht a combination!

The Wanderer inverseparadox
Wed Mar 26 00:35:00 CET 2008

Uoti Urpala wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 16:56 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>> Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>> Will you please stop describing the issue in such intentionally
>>> misleading and propagandistic terms?
>> I am of the opinion that I have given quite enough ground already
>> in acknowledging that other people can use the term if they want
>> to.
>> I am also not inclined to be particularly (lenient? forgiving?
>> generous? all of those imply negative things about my viewpoint
>> which I do not intend...) towards someone who brought up the
>> subject by intentionally misunderstanding the term when there was
>> no ambiguity.
> That's not a fair description of how the subject came up either.

True, and I apologize.

> My response to the initial post that used 'k' incorrectly only had a
> parenthesized remark "I assume you meant Ki, not k". I don't see how
> you could call that "intentionally misunderstanding".

Phrasing it that way does overstate the case. However, since it was and
remains entirely plain what the intended meaning was, responding as you
did (by making such a parenthetical comment rather than simply ignoring
the usage with which you disagree) is something which I have difficulty
seeing as anything other than intentionally pretending to not understand
so as to have the opportunity to put forward a "correction" and thus
advance the terminology you prefer. (That in turn is poorly phrased, and
may be something of a run-on sentence, but seems somewhat closer to what
I intended.)

>>> k meaning 1000 is the original and existing usage, and by a huge
>>> margin.
>> Not when measuring data. It may be that k was historically used to
>> mean 1000 in some cases there as well, but from what I can tell it
>> has been vastly more often used to mean 1024 when referring to
>> units of data, and that is the usage which "ki" and the like are
>> attempting to supersede.
> Except when talking about transmission of data etc...

The only case I can think of where this is the case is when the units
involved are e.g. baud, which since they are measuring bits are not
necessarily the same thing. (If one pursues that line of argument, which
I'm not sure I want to, it might be appropriate to restate my
disagreement above as "Not when counting bytes".) I have further
reservations about whether the baud is strictly a unit of data, but I
would have to reexamine my "basics of networking" class materials from
some while ago to be potentially able to build up an argument in that

> And the base-2 units are less practical when talking about large file
> sizes too.

Practical for what purposes?

It's less close to an acceptable approximation of the power-of-ten
value, yes - but since the very use of the power-of-two units leaves the
power-of-ten units out of the picture, the question of approximating
them becomes immaterial.

>> That said, unless other people jump in such that the discussion
>> expands beyond just me being annoyed, I intend to drop the subject
>> here rather than produce an extended thread of offtopic argument.
> There also was a thread about the general subject already last year.
> (http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2007-February/023218.html
> is where it stopped back then.)

I was fairly heavily involved in that thread, if it's the one I recall.
The argument in there is what has led me to reluctantly concede for lack
of supportable argument otherwise that others are allowed to use the
term if they want to.

I don't want to get deep into the topic again, for my own peace of mind
if nothing else, particularly because I'm fairly sure nothing of any
value would come of it. I have responded this time because I felt that I
should apologize for the phrasing of one part of my last post.

    The Wanderer

    My usual .sig is on vacation while I adjust to my new computer

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list