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
