Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bu-cs!bzs From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Size of SysV "block" (really: byte != 8 bits) Message-ID: <9816@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 19-Jul-87 20:23:05 EDT Article-I.D.: bu-cs.9816 Posted: Sun Jul 19 20:23:05 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jul-87 00:37:54 EDT References: <2792@phri.UUCP> <6705@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <524@ollie.UUCP> <2799@phri.UUCP> Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci. Lines: 21 In-reply-to: roy@phri.UUCP's message of 18 Jul 87 01:42:02 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) > By the way, if you really want to get confusing, consider that the >French word for byte is (drumroll...) "octet". As far as I know, there is >no other word to describe the concept of an arbitrarily sized contigious >group of bits. Perhaps some native French speaker could confirm or deny >this? >-- >Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy It's not limited to the French, the ARPAnet RFCs (protocol documents, Requests For Comment) universally use the term "octet" to describe an 8-bit unit. I am sure their motivation was clarity as a large segment of the earlier community used 36-bit systems with their non-8-bit "bytes". In fact your translation of "octet" (Fr.) to "byte" is of course erroneous, it means what it sounds like I assume, an eight-bit unit. I would say this important usage lends strength to the adoption of the term, I would hope that other protocol specifiers are as careful. -Barry Shein, Boston University