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%2BHWx4KSB30vmDdERmYCjx9USEg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD2Ti29KTgFTEnJFNa_X61Tv%2BHWx4KSB30vmDdERmYCjx9USEg@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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EC50085E-E535-4722-99D5-70712BE39FCB>