Re: GB vs. MB

THE =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BF?= GUY (
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:51:15 -0500 (EST)

>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.

---------- End of Original Message ----------

We should most definitely stick with MB = 2^20. Disk manufacturers have
redefined the MB for their own purposes (i.e. marketing), but there is no
reason that software (esp. linux which has no need for marketing) should
succumb to this. Linux need not comply with the rest of the world, as it's the
rest of the world that's wrong; it should be the other way around. Simply put,
it is the disk manufacturers that are wrong.

just throwin' in my .001k's worth (k = 1024),

Avi Shevin,