bytes vs. octets Alex Shinn (15 Sep 2004 09:01 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets bear (15 Sep 2004 16:26 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Alex Shinn (16 Sep 2004 00:17 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Thomas Bushnell BSG (15 Sep 2004 18:54 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Alex Shinn (16 Sep 2004 00:28 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Thomas Bushnell BSG (16 Sep 2004 01:01 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Alex Shinn (16 Sep 2004 01:52 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Thomas Bushnell BSG (16 Sep 2004 02:15 UTC)
Re: bytes vs. octets Per Bothner (16 Sep 2004 04:18 UTC)

Re: bytes vs. octets Alex Shinn 16 Sep 2004 00:27 UTC

At 15 Sep 2004 11:53:58 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@synthcode.com> writes:
>
> > I've given it a lot of thought and have decided to stick to *-byte in
> > the names as there is simply no advantage in changing to octet.  In
> > this day and age "byte" is universally accepted as being 8 bits and
> > any argument that it could be misinterpreted is simply not
> > realistic.
>
> What do you mean my "universally accepted", given that you have seen
> it not accepted on this very list?

I have only seen evidence that in those machines for which the
smallest addressable memory unit is not 8 bits they still use "byte"
to refer to 8 bits.  This is the modern definition of byte.

--
Alex