Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)

Christopher Chan christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk
Thu Jun 11 02:04:04 UTC 2009

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Chan 
> <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk 
> <mailto:christopher.chan at 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+

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list