Re: Mc Digest, Vol 64, Issue 8

[Renato <rennabh gmail com>]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:24:50 +0200
chris glur <crglur gmail com> wrote:

> Following user's quirky requests for eg.
> * ls -lh type format

I don't want to insist, but could you explain me why/how this is quirky
and will likely lead to disaster? If it were a choosable option, I
could see only benefits from it.

btw maybe I didn't explain myself correctly, but I meant ls -lh type
format *only* for file's sizes, which are now expressed only in
kilobyte (or kilobit, sorry I confuse everytime) and thus big files
(several gigas) are, for me, a problem. I'd rather know a file is
approxiamtely 21Gb than 22011791872 kilobit/byte, or 698Mb rather than
731781120.

Renato