On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:24:50 +0200 chris glur <crg...@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 _______________________________________________ Mc mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc
