Re: Configure.help editorial policy

[Benjamin LaHaise]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:57:11AM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> I don't want to get dragged into this silly debate; the point I was
> making is that we already have considerable inconsistency and choosing
> STANDARDS BASED tokens might not be a bad thing.

They're defacto standards that have been in use for well over a decade.  
If the same could be said about GiB, maybe I could agree with you.

> The nomenclature in use here is bigger than Linux (yes, believe it or
> not such a thing is possible!), and like it or not people should just
> get over it.

Hmmm, all of the advertising, computer media and electrical engineering 
related material I've read recently seems to be using GB.  In fact, there 
was one very article about the whole issue that found the computer 
industry to be remarkably consistent in using terms like "10GB" with no 
space between the number and the measuring unit.  Oh wait, sorry, that's 
not formally approved by any standards bodies.

> Standards exist to make peoples lives easier, the fact the hard drive
> and memory vendors currently don't use these phrases right now doesn't
> make the standard wrong --- this world is full of clue-less marketing
> people and nothing will change this.

Many standards bodies are examples of confusopolies.  Take a look at the 
POSIX threading standards.  Do they make people's lives easier under 
Linux?  Should we accept every standard at face value and follow it 
obediently wherever it takes us?

> Accept that KB and GB are *wrong* (this isn't a statement of opinion
> but rather of fact [1]) and then choose whether or not Linux
> documentation should be wrong or right.

Can you send me replacements for all the documentation I've got that 
mentions GB or KB then?  I wouldn't want to be non-compliant.

		-ben