John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Chan > <christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk > <mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk>> wrote: > > Besides, I have already made clear in later posts in this thread > that I > really do not care what is used so long as it is uniform across all > operating systems. If Ubuntu wants to do its thing while other > operating > systems keep convention, be my guest. You bet that I, for one, > will not > be installing it anywhere on school campus because the school has more > important things to do than preach Ubuntu is right and all other > operating systems are wrong which is why you have different > numbers for > GB on Ubuntu and XP, Solaris and Mac OS X and I will not risk looking > like a fool or an Ubuntu/Linux fundamentalist for something the school > may or may not care about. > > > Opinion noted. > > But how will you explain that you can't burn a 4.5GB file onto 4.7GB DVD? The same as how we are currently explaining things about hard disks. I just say they use different standards. No, I am not going to make an issue unless the teacher is one that actually wants to know and learn.
> > Preach that Microsoft is right and TDK, Verbatim, Western Digital etc. > are all wrong? :-D. I don't go into that. I just say operating systems use 1024 and hardware use 1000. Tada. > > For my myself I don't much care what Microsoft does. But I do have to > read hardware labels, and the DVD example caught me. At first I > thought k3b was being ultra-conservative in case it needed an absurdly > large 200MiB index for some reason. YMMV. Yeah, just as you don't care what Redhat, Sun Microsystems/Oracle, and Apple do. Oh, oh, and HP and IBM too. > > I do broadly agree that it would be best to discuss this with other OS > vendors, or at least other OSS vendors, before making such a change. > However, my hunch would be that users wouldn't be too scared by "GiB". > I'd imagine at first that they would see GiB where they expect GB and > figure they look much the same, so they probably mean something > similar. But maybe it would still provide a useful clue as to why they > can't fit 4.5 GiB file onto a 4.7GB disk. We'd really have to test > this on real users though to be sure (and this test may be relevant to > the other vendors and standards bodies too). > Nah, they won't be scared by the GiB. It is just that GiB won't meet the wants of certain ones here. All in favour of the 1000 kB/MB/GB/TB? 1+ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
