Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Mar 2021 15:52:45 -0700
From:      "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com>
To:        FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Standards: IEC Giga [re: FreeBSD image size confusion]
Message-ID:  <EC50085E-E535-4722-99D5-70712BE39FCB@kreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD2Ti29KTgFTEnJFNa_X61Tv+HWx4KSB30vmDdERmYCjx9USEg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAD2Ti29KTgFTEnJFNa_X61Tv+HWx4KSB30vmDdERmYCjx9USEg@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 13 Mar 2021, at 15:07, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
> "giga" =3D "G" =3D decimal prefix, powers of ten, 10^, base 10 =
underlying
> "gibi" =3D "Gi" =3D binary prefix, powers of two, 2^, base 2 =
underlying

It will be a decade or three before we know if this shakes out the way =
that ISO is trying to force on people. The simple fact is that GB has =
been used for a binary number for decades, just as MB and KB, and the =
moved from MB =3D 2^20 to MB =3D 1,000,000 was driven by Hard drive =
manufacturers who wanted to market their 100MB drives as 104MB to fool =
people into thinking the drives were larger than they were.

2^30 is a far more useful number when dealing with computers than =
1,000,000,000, which is why many MANY people still used 'GB' to mean =
2^30.

But yes, you are technically correct, but that is the worst type of =
correct.

--=20
"Patience has its limits. Take it too far, and it's cowardice." -
	George Jackson




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EC50085E-E535-4722-99D5-70712BE39FCB>