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 Per Bothner 16 Sep 2004 04:17 UTC

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@synthcode.com> writes:
> [8 bits] is the modern definition of byte.
>
> So the PDP-10 doesn't count, does it?

Er, no, not to the *modern* definition of "byte".

In current usage "1 byte" == "8 bits".  Octet is more
pedentically "correct", but it is not common usage.
Byte is.

> You can make whichever decision you wish, but please don't support
> your decision with a lie.  It is true that many people use "byte" to
> mean "eight bits".  They are wrong,

Words change meaning.  Even technical words.  Sometimes that is
unfortunate when there is older usage that is more precise or
when the new usage conflicts with other uses.  In that case one can
try to fight the new usage while one can, but at some one has to
accept that language is defined by usage.

> But don't then back up your decision with the
> dishonest claim that your usage is "universally accepted".

I agree.  Alex should have written "gernally accepted" or
"common accepted", but we all sometimes overstate our case.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/