On Monday 11 June 2007 20:38, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Monday 11 June 2007 20:06, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > I agree with the "sounds stupid" part, although I don't belive this is a > > valid argument. What I don't believe is your 80 colums argument. Could > > you please name a few of the *many* programs which would have to drop > > information, precision, or significantly change their display to use the > > "KiB" unit? > > What I'm missing in this request is the practical use. > [...] > Can you tell me in which cases you would make a different decision if this > was either 2134*1000 or 2134*1024 bytes? > > In either case, ~ 2 million bytes suits your requirement, or it doesn't. > This sounds to me like solving a non-problem, unless you can of course tell > me in which situations adding the "B" or "iB" in the field above would > solve a real question.
In many cases the difference is insignificant. It's the consistent use of IEC
vs SI units everywhere that give the big benefits. Since the effort needed to
convert a piece of software is in the vast majority of cases tiny, it's worth
it.
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgpAzvsgKQDo0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
