Rodolfo Medina wrote:

> Chris Jackson <c.jack...@shadowcat.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> File timestamps are (or at least should be) stored in UTC. It's the
>> display of them that's affected.
> 
> 
> 
> But I did the following experiment: on a computer with system time set to UTC,
> I created a file at 14:43 UTC.  Then I copied it via rsync and ethernet cross
> cable to another PC with system time set to GMT, one hour late respect to UTC.
> I expected that, on the 2nd PC, the timestamp was displayed in the local time,
> i.e. 15:43; instead, it appears as 14:43 as well.  (For the copy I used the -t
> option.)
> 
> So, according with this experiment it is not true that the displayed time is 
> in
> local format.
> 
> I think this may cause serious errors: in fact, when someone read the 
> timestamp
> on the 2nd PC, he would believe that the file were created at 14:43 of the GMT
> time, which is wrong: in fact, it was created at 15:43 GMT = 14:43 UTC.
> 
> What do you all think?
> 
> Rodolfo
> 
> 


GMT, as far as a computer is concerned, is the same as UTC. The
difference is that GMT is a solar time and may be up to a second
different, however since computers don't make solar observations,
they're the same in implementation, and many people use them loosely to
mean the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

Paragraph 4 of the introduction, plus discussion under "History".

Are you thinking of British Summer Time, a form of daylight saving time,
which ended last weekend anyway so the UK is now on GMT?

The question about FAT filesystems is a different one as Camaleon
observes, however. I misunderstood in my original mail.

--
Chris Jackson
Shadowcat Systems Ltd.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cd2f504.3010...@shadowcat.co.uk

Reply via email to