linux-kernel - RE: PROBLEM: KB->KiB, MB -> MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:12:26 -0800
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: PROBLEM: KB->KiB, MB -> MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2)

> > Talk about a cure worse than the disease! So you're
> > saying that 256MB flash
> > cards could be advertised as having 268.4MB? A 512MB RAM stick is
> > mislabelled and could correctly say 536.8MB? That's just plain
> > craziness.

> No, I meant to advertise it as a 256 MiB flash device and a 512 MiB
> flash device, as the Mi prefix has a single interpretation, that is 2
> to the power of 20, as per IEC 60027-2, whereas M has not if used
> outside SI units.

If it actually has 256*2^20 bytes, why advertise it as "256 MiB" when "268.4
MB" is equally valid and looks better? It really comes down to this: is it
your position that "256 MB" can only correctly mean 256 million bytes?

If you are right, a "512MB" RAM stick is mislabelled and is more correctly
labelled as "536.8MB". (With 512MiB being equally correct.)

Isn't that obviously not just wrong but borderline crazy? Yes, your position
has some nice consequences, but that doesn't allow you to ignore the bad
ones.

Unfortunately, we're not writing on a clean slate here.

DS

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/