Messages in this thread |  | | From | Stephen Costaras <> | Subject | Re: GB vs. MB | Date | Wed, 27 Nov 1996 17:51:57 -0600 (CST) |
| |
> From: Kai Schulte <sp0005@aixrs1.hrz.uni-essen.de> > 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.
I disagree, Linux should have the correct sizes for MB/GB/TB, et al. Just because disk manufacturers label something wrong, and that becomes pervasive in the industry DOES NOT make it correct. It follows the same old saying, If everyone else jumps off a cliff, why should we follow. Don't be a lemming. ;)
Stephen
|  |