On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:30:27PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > > > > Receiving objects: 100% (5439/5439), 1.60 MiB | 636 KiB/s, done. > > > > > > I mostly like this, but can we please just use "MB/kB" instead of > > > "MiB/KiB"? > > > > > > I hope it was some kind of joke on crazy EU bureaucrats that just wasn't > > > caught in time. > > > > I don't care either ways. In fact my own preference is for MB/kB, but > > if I had used that first I'm sure someone else would have asked for the > > purist notations. > > As far as you don't claim 1MB is 1024KB, it's okay. [ heh, I knew someone would say something ] Yes, to me, 1MB is 1024 KB. Always been, until those idiotic hard disk manufacturers decided to redefine the common interpretation of what everyone else used to consider what a MB is just to boost their marketing claims. Nicolas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
