Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Just saw your message by chance. I read this list only on gmane. Replying to ML now. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Doesn't the scanning software at least set the digitization time to the > time at which you scanned the photos in? Yes, it does. But that is of no use to me since it doesn't reflect the time of the photo taken. -- 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/aanlktimwwuhhzhpupgovups12hwcfafv4mkj1bbbp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? The third of May, because it's recognizable as the ISO date/time format 03-05-2010 There's no way on Earth to *know* whether this date is May 3rd or March 5th. So? (What's your point? We were talking about the ISO date format, the ISO date format when time fields are present, and, earlier, common local data formats. Your example clearly isn't one of the first two. Are you claiming that some local data format uses that component order _and_ uses hyphens?) I interpreted Andrei's email as referring to the ambiguities in the file *names* (like 03052010065.jpg), not the fs timestamps. Okay, gotcha now. Yes, I was addressing the ls timestamp output. Daniel -- -- 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/4c07d31d.9070...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Stephan Seitz wrote: ... That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it is ISO date format. Oh, also: Yes, but the ISO date format is fairly easy to recognize because (as far as I know) no traditional numeric-only date format uses hyphens. (I've seen only slashes, dots, etc.) And any hypenated date format with the year after something else is clearly not the ISO date format. That leaves only the orders -MM-DD and -DD-MM. As long as no one starts using the really illogical format -DD-MM, there won't really be any ambiguity.) Daniel -- -- 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/4c07d281.8030...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? The third of May, because it's recognizable as the ISO date/time format (because of the hyphens, and, in that case, because of the time format (no "am" or "pm") and position (after the date part)). Yes, that depends on there not being any similar format that uses hyphens but a different number order, but there isn't, is there? And even if one doesn't already know the ISO format, one could easily recognize from the year, hour, and minute that the components are in descending size order (year before month, month before day of month, etc.) 03-05-2010 There's no way on Earth to *know* whether this date is May 3rd or March 5th. So? (What's your point? We were talking about the ISO date format, the ISO date format when time fields are present, and, earlier, common local data formats. Your example clearly isn't one of the first two. Are you claiming that some local data format uses that component order _and_ uses hyphens?) I interpreted Andrei's email as referring to the ambiguities in the file *names* (like 03052010065.jpg), not the fs timestamps. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c07d1b3.6010...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? The third of May, because it's recognizable as the ISO date/time format (because of the hyphens, and, in that case, because of the time format (no "am" or "pm") and position (after the date part)). Yes, that depends on there not being any similar format that uses hyphens but a different number order, but there isn't, is there? And even if one doesn't already know the ISO format, one could easily recognize from the year, hour, and minute that the components are in descending size order (year before month, month before day of month, etc.) 03-05-2010 There's no way on Earth to *know* whether this date is May 3rd or March 5th. So? (What's your point? We were talking about the ISO date format, the ISO date format when time fields are present, and, earlier, common local data formats. Your example clearly isn't one of the first two. Are you claiming that some local data format uses that component order _and_ uses hyphens?) Daniel -- -- 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/4c07ca2f.8010...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Stephan Seitz wrote: On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: ... That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it is ISO date format. Using the name for the month does not make things more complicated with the exception of parsing the output with another program. Yes, it does make things more complicated: That other program has to have 12 month strings--and then one set of 12 for each language that might need to be recognized. Daniel -- 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/4c07cc47.3040...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 15:44:49, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > > Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", > > > but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. > > > > One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans >:-) > > In this specific case, I'd say that is a good reason to be different. I > wouldn't say ISO format is the correct way to be different -- probably > something that uses '%b', '%e', and '%Y' and has 3 spaces, but not is the > same > order is appropriate. > > That's just my gut feeling though. It's a local(e) thing, so I can only > really speak for en...@arkansas. Unfortunately ls is going against the locale here: ,[ /usr/share/i18n/ro_RO ] | LC_TIME ... | % Appropriate date and time representation (%c) ... | % "%a %d %b %Y %T %z" | d_t_fmt "/ | " | % | % Appropriate date representation (%x) | % "%d.%m.%Y" | d_fmt "" ... | END LC_TIME ` Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> >>> From SUSv3: >>> "The field shall contain the appropriate date and >>> timestamp of >>> when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall >>> be the >>> equivalent of the output of the following date command: >>> >>> date "+%b %e %H:%M" >>> >>> if the file has been modified in the last six months, or: >>> >>> date "+%b %e %Y" >> ... >>> Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", >>> but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. >> >> One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans>:-) >> > > I've often wondered where that date convention originates. The military > (or, at least, the Navy) and DEC, when it created VMS (don't know about > it's earlier OSs) realizes the flaw in that format and thus uses > DD-AAA-. > But for sorting easily, -MM-DD is the best format. -- Erwan -- 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/4c05f3aa.2060...@rail.eu.org
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 15:23:11 Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > From SUSv3: > > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and > > timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the > > field shall be the equivalent of the output of the following date > > command: > > > > date "+%b %e %H:%M" > > > > if the file has been modified in the last six months, or: > > > > date "+%b %e %Y" > > > Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", > > but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. > > One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans >:-) In this specific case, I'd say that is a good reason to be different. I wouldn't say ISO format is the correct way to be different -- probably something that uses '%b', '%e', and '%Y' and has 3 spaces, but not is the same order is appropriate. That's just my gut feeling though. It's a local(e) thing, so I can only really speak for en...@arkansas. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: From SUSv3: "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the equivalent of the output of the following date command: date "+%b %e %H:%M" if the file has been modified in the last six months, or: date "+%b %e %Y" ... Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans>:-) I've often wondered where that date convention originates. The military (or, at least, the Navy) and DEC, when it created VMS (don't know about it's earlier OSs) realizes the flaw in that format and thus uses DD-AAA-. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c057015.6020...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > From SUSv3: > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp > of > when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the > equivalent of the output of the following date command: > > date "+%b %e %H:%M" > > if the file has been modified in the last six months, or: > > date "+%b %e %Y" ... > Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", > but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans >:-) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: For me dd mmm is very clear ... Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? Then I can always use „env LANG=C ls -l”. That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it is ISO date format. Using the name for the month does not make things more complicated with the exception of parsing the output with another program. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net | | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sunday 30 May 2010 00:58:59 Brian Marshall wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > > > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > > > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 > > > 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" > > > if it's not the current year. > > > > Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE > > Any idea why the default was changed? Possibly to bring it in line with the Single UNIX Specification? From SUSv3: "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the equivalent of the output of the following date command: date "+%b %e %H:%M" if the file has been modified in the last six months, or: date "+%b %e %Y" (where two s are used between %e and %Y ) if the file has not been modified in the last six months or if the modification date is in the future, except that, in both cases, the final produced by date shall not be included and the output shall be as if the date command were executed at the time of the last modification date of the file rather than the current time." Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 10:58:09, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > >For me dd mmm is very clear ... > > Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? I think in such a case the output of ls will be the lesser of my problems ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 01/06/10 12:14 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > > jhead -n%Y%m%d-%H%M%S *.JPG > > It reads the date/time stamp from a pic's Exif header and then renames > the file. ...... Not applicable if there is no exif data in the photo file ... fairly common scenario, I might add, when photos are scanned from film. And besides, even if Exif meta data is present, further hack is needed to put all the photos in a folder with a name based on the date when the photo shoot was started. Combine the above two and jhead is not such a convenience at all. The best solutions I fixed on is to create the appropriately named folder and save all the scans within that. The scanning software allows me to sequentially number the frames that I scan and I just put the ISO date based prefix before that number. -- Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without ever having been read. -- 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/hu3d9t$oc...@dough.gmane.org
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? The third of May, because it's recognizable as the ISO date/time format (because of the hyphens, and, in that case, because of the time format (no "am" or "pm") and position (after the date part)). Yes, that depends on there not being any similar format that uses hyphens but a different number order, but there isn't, is there? And even if one doesn't already know the ISO format, one could easily recognize from the year, hour, and minute that the components are in descending size order (year before month, month before day of month, etc.) 03-05-2010 There's no way on Earth to *know* whether this date is May 3rd or March 5th. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c05327a.4000...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 06/01/2010 10:18 AM, H.S. wrote: On 31/05/10 05:38 AM, Camaleón wrote: Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as "2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a very well organized fit :-) Totally agree. This is one of the main uses of ISO date format that I routinely take advantage of. Most common scenario in my case is organizing my photos (mostly scanned from film, digital as well). I have a /path/to/photos directory and in that I have directories for each roll or group of photos named something like 20100601_00_nn_Subject (MMDD___). This way, the default order of listing is always chronological. And for the cases where I do not know the or MM or DD, I just use zeros. Works pretty well. In fact, there is no other date format that can work this good! Further, the ISO date format has a structure where the resolution gets finer as go towards the right. ->MM->DD->HH->SS just shows smaller time units as we read it. I can understand if an average Joe sticks with non-ISO date formats. But for logic and computer related stuff, ISO format is the best choice, IMHO. jhead -n%Y%m%d-%H%M%S *.JPG It reads the date/time stamp from a pic's Exif header and then renames the file. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c0531f6.3060...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 31/05/10 05:38 AM, Camaleón wrote: > > Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as > "2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a > very well organized fit :-) Totally agree. This is one of the main uses of ISO date format that I routinely take advantage of. Most common scenario in my case is organizing my photos (mostly scanned from film, digital as well). I have a /path/to/photos directory and in that I have directories for each roll or group of photos named something like 20100601_00_nn_Subject (MMDD___). This way, the default order of listing is always chronological. And for the cases where I do not know the or MM or DD, I just use zeros. Works pretty well. In fact, there is no other date format that can work this good! Further, the ISO date format has a structure where the resolution gets finer as go towards the right. ->MM->DD->HH->SS just shows smaller time units as we read it. I can understand if an average Joe sticks with non-ISO date formats. But for logic and computer related stuff, ISO format is the best choice, IMHO. -- Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without ever having been read. -- 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/hu38d4$3l...@dough.gmane.org
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/30/2010 05:51 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: [snip] You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? That's the point... Which is why -MM-DD HH:mm is the only rational format. Well, except for the ISO variation -MM-DDTHH:mm, good for when you want to avoid spaces (e.g., in filenames). :-) Daniel -- 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/4c052336.7020...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? The third of May, because it's recognizable as the ISO date/time format (because of the hyphens, and, in that case, because of the time format (no "am" or "pm") and position (after the date part)). Yes, that depends on there not being any similar format that uses hyphens but a different number order, but there isn't, is there? And even if one doesn't already know the ISO format, one could easily recognize from the year, hour, and minute that the components are in descending size order (year before month, month before day of month, etc.) Daniel -- 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/4c0521ed.9040...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
Andrei Popescu wrote: For me dd mmm is very clear ... Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Daniel -- -- 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/4c052001.9040...@fgm.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 05/31/2010 01:39 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:51:14 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing.
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format
is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd
really like to know)?
You got it :-)
That can only be read as "3rd May, 2010".
In the US, 03052010 (MMDD is a *very* common format, even among
"computer people" who should know better and still use it in file
names) is March 05, 2010.
And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of
the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale
is" in order to correctly interpret the date you are showing because is
always fixed ("year-month-day" notation).
Humans have to learn many things from computers. Mainly, "logic".
And people's names should, like in many Asian cultures, be:
Family, Given.
Johnson, Ronald
Popescu, Andrei
Bargmann, Nate
People's names sort naturally, without the need for a separate (and
arbitrarily sized) first_name and last_name fields in databases.
--
Dissent is patriotic, remember?
--
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/4c03b44a.9000...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
* On 2010 31 May 04:39 -0500, Camaleón wrote: > Worst is that, inside my company, there are people still using just two > digits for the year, something like "31/05/10" (it reads 31st May, 2010). > Woow, sir, for sure is confusing (I ask them, "hey, what will happen in > year 3010? >:-)") and that is the reason I prefer to use a standardized > format even does not match the usual form I was used to. No need to wait that long. 2110 will come along soon enough to make two digit year notation ambiguous again. The good thing about this thread is that it caused me to reaquaint myself with various ls options I'd forgotten. - Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html -- 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/20100531122556.gc2...@n0nb.us
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:07:54 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Lu, 31 mai 10, 06:39:15, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of
>> the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale
>> is" in order to correctly interpret the date you are showing because is
>> always fixed ("year-month-day" notation).
>
> Sorry, but I mean, if I'm an ignorant about date formats (which many
> computer users are), but happen to know that computers often use some
> format where month comes before day (american style) it is not at all
> obvious.
Yes, I'm (being in a European country) in your same boat. Some of us use
day-month-year format, but other countries have their own way to put the
date and is confusing enough.
Worst is that, inside my company, there are people still using just two
digits for the year, something like "31/05/10" (it reads 31st May, 2010).
Woow, sir, for sure is confusing (I ask them, "hey, what will happen in
year 3010? >:-)") and that is the reason I prefer to use a standardized
format even does not match the usual form I was used to.
Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as
"2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a
very well organized fit :-)
> And there is nothing to guess about dd mmm , worst case I just don't
> understand the mmm string because it's in the wrong language.
That is what I hate those fancy representations of date in the manner of
"31st May, 2010". Numbers are "universal" (no translation needed) and
pretty much easier and quicker to read than any other word written in
English, Spanish or Romanian :-)
But DD-MM- format does not match for any logical point of view (maybe
it has for a human POV but humans lack logic). "Year" has to come first
because is more important value than the day. When you take a wide
timeframe, you find that "day" becomes useless.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
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/pan.2010.05.31.09.38...@gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Lu, 31 mai 10, 06:39:15, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
> >
> > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd
> > really like to know)?
>
> You got it :-)
>
> That can only be read as "3rd May, 2010".
>
> And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of
> the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale
> is" in order to correctly interpret the date you are showing because is
> always fixed ("year-month-day" notation).
Sorry, but I mean, if I'm an ignorant about date formats (which many
computer users are), but happen to know that computers often use some
format where month comes before day (american style) it is not at all
obvious.
And there is nothing to guess about dd mmm , worst case I just don't
understand the mmm string because it's in the wrong language.
Regards,
Andrei, devil's advocate of the day :)
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:51:14 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing.
>
> You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format
> is used. Let me see...
>
> -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
>
> Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd
> really like to know)?
You got it :-)
That can only be read as "3rd May, 2010".
And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of
the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale
is" in order to correctly interpret the date you are showing because is
always fixed ("year-month-day" notation).
Humans have to learn many things from computers. Mainly, "logic".
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
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/pan.2010.05.31.06.39...@gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 05/30/2010 05:51 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: [snip] You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? That's the point... Which is why -MM-DD HH:mm is the only rational format. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c031e9f.8010...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 05/30/2010 06:21 PM, Brian Marshall wrote: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? I've never heard of a -dd-mm format. All the other formats usually put the year at the end, and if they don't, they're probably using slashes or something else instead of hyphens. That's sufficient to distinguish the ISO format from the rest, I think. DD-AAA- is common in the US Navy. It sucks, though, as a collating format. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c031dcf.90...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:52:52AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun,30.May.10, 16:21:26, Brian Marshall wrote: > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg > > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg > > > > > > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd > > > really like to know)? > > > > I've never heard of a -dd-mm format. All the other formats usually > > put the year at the end, and if they don't, they're probably using > > slashes or something else instead of hyphens. That's sufficient to > > distinguish the ISO format from the rest, I think. > > Sure, but I can't tell for sure unless I read strftime(3) or so... > For me dd mmm is very clear, but I don't like the suppressing of > the current year either :( I see what you mean. Any date format that only uses numbers risks confusing the user about which number is the month and which is the day. The point of using an international standard for dates is to avoid that confusion, but "May 30 2010" is clear as long as you understand "May", so I guess it's a moot point in this case. Brian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun,30.May.10, 16:21:26, Brian Marshall wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg > > > > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd > > really like to know)? > > I've never heard of a -dd-mm format. All the other formats usually > put the year at the end, and if they don't, they're probably using > slashes or something else instead of hyphens. That's sufficient to > distinguish the ISO format from the rest, I think. Sure, but I can't tell for sure unless I read strftime(3) or so... For me dd mmm is very clear, but I don't like the suppressing of the current year either :( Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun,30.May.10, 12:04:47, Brian Marshall wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > > english, "Mai 30 2010". > > That looks like a bug in the pt_PT.UTF-8 locale. de_DE.UTF-8 gets it > right with "30. Mai 2010", so ideally, the locales *should* be fully > localized and not just translated. At least for Romanian it's not a bug in the locale, but rather missing feature, because only %c and %x are defined. Neither are suitable for ls (%c includes the weekday and %x doesn't include the time) so it is using it's own format. I'll report a bug for Romanian. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg > > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd > really like to know)? I've never heard of a -dd-mm format. All the other formats usually put the year at the end, and if they don't, they're probably using slashes or something else instead of hyphens. That's sufficient to distinguish the ISO format from the rest, I think. Brian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote: > The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: > > s...@stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME > LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" > > s...@stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos > drwx-- 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News > drwx-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF > > "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it > should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. > > "May 16", the same. > > "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. > > "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be > (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... I haven't read the manpage, but it seems like a bug. > Let's try with the long iso format: > > s...@stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso > > s...@stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos > drwx-- 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News > drwx-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF > > This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 21:17, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > >> Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" >> has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 >> 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" >> if it's not the current year. > >> I suspect it's coreutils' fault, because while the version of the >> locales package is about the same in Ubuntu and Debian (2.11 and >> 2.10), coreutils is significantly newer in Debian (8.5 compared to >> 7.4). >> >> Can anyone else confirm this issue? Is it a bug or a feature? How can >> I get ls to print the ISO date format again? > > Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE > environment variable, like this: > > export TIME_STYLE=long-iso I almost missed this thread, but it's a good thing I didn't. I had been using LC_TIME=en_DK.UTF-8 to get ISO format, but at some point that stopped working, and I couldn't figure out what had happened. And I have to agree with Camaleón and Ron that the ISO format is a lot less confusing. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- 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/aanlktilia09sgraps3uverrqchcj7ugkp0hlovpgn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > english, "Mai 30 2010". That looks like a bug in the pt_PT.UTF-8 locale. de_DE.UTF-8 gets it right with "30. Mai 2010", so ideally, the locales *should* be fully localized and not just translated. Brian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:22:55 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote: (...) >> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. >> >> > Proof of your brilliance is that you think just like me! Oh. I'll take that as a "compliment". (He, he... just joking. That was a good one) ;-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/pan.2010.05.30.18.41...@gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote: On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* output should be easy to understand by the user and a localized date makes sense. No sir, the localized format it's a mess. The only date format understable by *any* user in the world is the ISO format, we all should move to that. so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date standard. Even if ISO is a standard, it's not the *usual* representation of a date for too many users to use it as a default. The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: s...@stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" s...@stt008:~$ ls -l total 1 drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos drwx-- 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News drwx-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. "May 16", the same. "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... Let's try with the long iso format: s...@stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso s...@stt008:~$ ls -l total 1 drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos drwx-- 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News drwx-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. Proof of your brilliance is that you think just like me! -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c02acff.4080...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: >> >> Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date >> representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization >> madness, > > Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* output should be easy to understand by > the user and a localized date makes sense. No sir, the localized format it's a mess. The only date format understable by *any* user in the world is the ISO format, we all should move to that. >> so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date >> standard. > > Even if ISO is a standard, it's not the *usual* representation of a date > for too many users to use it as a default. The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: s...@stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" s...@stt008:~$ ls -l total 1 drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos drwx-- 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News drwx-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. "May 16", the same. "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... Let's try with the long iso format: s...@stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso s...@stt008:~$ ls -l total 1 drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos drwx-- 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News drwx-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/pan.2010.05.30.18.05...@gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 05/30/2010 11:23 AM, Stephan Seitz wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:58:59PM -0700, Brian Marshall wrote: Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make The new default was the default years ago. Then it was changed to the ISO format output. Since then I hated it. The ISO format is wasting to much space and is more difficult to read. I was told, that the ISO format was chosen to make it simplier to pipe the output to another program. Well, this is certainly true, but in most cases I don’t use a pipe. Luckily, --time-style=locale changed the format back to the good old ways. It seems, upstream is now thinking again, that the localized output is the better one. Thus is the beauty of choice and FLOSS, since I *want* ISO format and frequently use it's regularized date format in filters. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c029ae8.9090...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:58:59PM -0700, Brian Marshall wrote: Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make The new default was the default years ago. Then it was changed to the ISO format output. Since then I hated it. The ISO format is wasting to much space and is more difficult to read. I was told, that the ISO format was chosen to make it simplier to pipe the output to another program. Well, this is certainly true, but in most cases I don’t use a pipe. Luckily, --time-style=locale changed the format back to the good old ways. It seems, upstream is now thinking again, that the localized output is the better one. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net | | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: > > Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date > representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* output should be easy to understand by the user and a localized date makes sense. > so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date > standard. Even if ISO is a standard, it's not the *usual* representation of a date for too many users to use it as a default. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sunday 30 May 2010 10:44:38 Nuno Magalhães wrote: > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > english, "Mai 30 2010". Erratum: American or American English. English English is also not represented, since we too put day month year. So +1 for ISO. Does away with all this parochialism! Lisi -- 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/201005301257.56411.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On 05/29/2010 11:17 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote: [snip] Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE environment variable, like this: export TIME_STYLE=long-iso Another method is the --time-style option. For example: $ alias dir='ls -aFl --time-style=+"%F %T"' $ dir 19*jpg -rw--- 1 me me 158770 2007-09-25 23:15:08 19_20_Aircraft10.jpg -rw--- 1 me me 114455 2007-09-25 23:15:26 19_20_Aircraft11.jpg -rw--- 1 me me 139353 2007-09-25 23:13:45 19_20_Aircraft12.jpg -rw--- 1 me me 85438 2007-09-25 23:15:57 19_20_Aircraft6.jpg -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- 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/4c024a0e.6050...@cox.net
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
* 2010-05-30 10:44 (+0100), Nuno Magalhães wrote: > +1 for ISO as default > Is there a way to push things into changing back? Use TIME_STYLE=long-iso or contact the GNU coreutils upstream. First search their mailing list archives for related discussions: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/ Then maybe report about problems: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#How-do-I-report-a-bug_003f -- Feel free to Cc me your replies if you want to make sure I'll notice them. I can't read all the list mail. -- 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/87sk59u2ru@mithlond.arda
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:19, Camaleón wrote: > Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date > representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, > so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date standard. +1 for ISO as default In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from english, "Mai 30 2010". Is there a way to push things into changing back? -- () ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto /\ ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail -- 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/aanlktimvwyopwuarxxzuyj_clnennkpndrfw2ekd6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:04:59 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sat,29.May.10, 22:58:59, Brian Marshall wrote: >> >> Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make >> sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or >> UTF-8 locale? (en_US.ISO-8859, to my knowledge, has always used the >> date format that en_US.UTF-8 is now using.) > > Why not? This way people using other languages now have a localized > date. Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date standard. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/pan.2010.05.30.09.19...@gmail.com
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
* 2010-05-29 22:58 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > Any idea why the default was changed? No idea. Indeed, I think long-iso would be better default for this kind of technical dates which are shown in tabular form. With fi_FI.UTF-8 locale the output of "ls -l" is difficult to read because the width of the date column is not fixed. In practice TIME_STYLE=locale is not usable at all (with "ls -l"). $ LC_TIME=fi_FI.UTF-8 TIME_STYLE=locale /bin/ls -l / total 101 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 30.1. 21:55 bin drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 1024 25.5. 20:33 boot lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root11 16.8.2009 cdrom -> media/cdrom drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4200 30.5. 07:30 dev drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 12288 30.5. 09:52 etc drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 1.5. 22:13 home lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root28 16.8.2009 initrd.img -> [...] drwxr-xr-x 16 root root 12288 23.1. 16:23 lib drwx-- 2 root root 16384 16.8.2009 lost+found drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 30.5. 06:58 media drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 16.8.2009 mnt drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 16.8.2009 opt dr-xr-xr-x 124 root root 0 30.5. 06:58 proc drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 4096 9.5. 13:58 root drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 11.3. 20:16 sbin drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 16.9.2008 selinux drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 16.8.2009 srv drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 0 30.5. 06:58 sys drwxrwxrwt 16 root root 16384 30.5. 10:37 tmp drwxr-xr-x 12 root root 4096 16.8.2009 usr drwxr-xr-x 15 root root 4096 16.8.2009 var lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root25 16.8.2009 vmlinuz -> [...] -- Feel free to Cc me your replies if you want to make sure I'll notice them. I can't read all the list mail. -- 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/871vct4xu1@mithlond.arda
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sat,29.May.10, 22:58:59, Brian Marshall wrote: > > Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make > sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or > UTF-8 locale? (en_US.ISO-8859, to my knowledge, has always used the date > format that en_US.UTF-8 is now using.) Why not? This way people using other languages now have a localized date. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > > > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 > > 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" > > if it's not the current year. > Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE > environment variable, like this: > > export TIME_STYLE=long-iso Thanks, this works. On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:21:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > Here's a better link which points to the Debian Reference manual: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/debian-reference.en.html#_customized_display_of_time_and_date Thanks for the link. Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or UTF-8 locale? (en_US.ISO-8859, to my knowledge, has always used the date format that en_US.UTF-8 is now using.) Brian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
* 2010-05-30 07:17 (+0300), Teemu Likonen wrote: > Related tips here: Here's a better link which points to the Debian Reference manual: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/debian-reference.en.html#_customized_display_of_time_and_date -- 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/8763263tpw@mithlond.arda
Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
* 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 > 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" > if it's not the current year. > I suspect it's coreutils' fault, because while the version of the > locales package is about the same in Ubuntu and Debian (2.11 and > 2.10), coreutils is significantly newer in Debian (8.5 compared to > 7.4). > > Can anyone else confirm this issue? Is it a bug or a feature? How can > I get ls to print the ISO date format again? Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE environment variable, like this: export TIME_STYLE=long-iso Related tips here: http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/po4a/html/ch09.en.html#_customized_display_of_time_and_date -- Feel free to Cc me your replies if you want to make sure I'll notice them. I can't read all the list mail. -- 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/87aari3twk@mithlond.arda
