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 holmgren@lysator.liu.se
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
Attachment:
pgp_oMMKcHcV9.pgp
Description: PGP signature