On 05/16/11 01:48, Peggy Russell wrote: > Shouldn't the `ls -l --si` output (#2 or #4) be display as 60MB vs 60M
That would be more consistent, yes. But it would also take up an extra column of output, and those columns are precious.
- bug#8676: ls --si --human-readable, MB vs M Peggy Russell
- bug#8676: ls --si --human-readable, MB vs M Paul Eggert
- bug#8676: ls --si --human-readable, MB vs M Jim Meyering
