On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:44:23 +0100 Stefan Stuhr <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The fact is that the de facto standard in software is to use base 2. > Just as harddisk producents have a long history of using base 10, in > software there's a long (longer?) history of using base 2. >From a pedantic view I would agree. But from a usability view I don't. > This situation is far from ideal, kilo is 1000, not 1024, but > kibibyte, while perhaps more correct, feels more like a stopgap > solution to me. Sure, but why does du have a --si option which gives true GB? > Sure, Thunar could use base 10, but that would not help with the > confusion, making Thunar inconsistent in this from pretty much every > other piece of software on users systems. Inconsistent of what? Thunar is supposed to tell me how much of my disc I use isn't it? It is long since we stopped counting files sizes in bits... When you buy a new disc you get 1 000 000 000 bytes of space (1GB) so why shouldn't Thunar tell me that I curently use 900 000 000 bytes in stead of something that seems smaller? ls, du etc.. have the option to show proper MB, GB etc... why not thunar? _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
