Re: GB vs. MB
Albert Cahalan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:12:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Kai Schulte <email@example.com>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, . Tethys SYSTEM ADMIN X wrote:
>> You could argue the case that Linux should be trying to appeal to
>> the mainstream, and shouldn't be so "hackerish". Personally, though,
>> I don't think being wrong about something is a good idea, even if it
>> might appeal to the uneducated masses.
> Yes. Real tools should display real information.
> If you want to "appeal to the masses", write one more of those great
> "System View" GUIs and add a "commercial mode" widget to make it display
> totally hyped, flashing, multi-color, glossy-magazine-style numbers.
I would like to see the drives sold with MB=2^20.
Since that is not so and nothing will change that,
I would at least like Linux to agree with the drive label.
It does not really matter if the drive companies decide
that a MB will be 937201 bytes. I'll buy "more" disk then.
Most of all, I'd like everything to agree.
The traditional MB is also hard to deal with unless you
write everything in hex. How many GB is 1900000000 bytes?
It is obviously 1.9 cheap GB, but it is 1.77 traditional GB.
I do not wish to do that calculation ever.
This is 1996, and a disk MB is 10^6, like it or not.
Linux should be compatible with the rest of the world.