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