Re: To synchronize system time witn NTP-server with no winter time shift whole year - how to?
On 2009-03-29_20:58:05, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-03-29 20:47, Paul E Condon wrote:
>> On 2009-03-30_10:31:27, Alex Samad wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:49:22AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
>>>> On 2009-03-29_16:19:28, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday 29 March 2009 17:07:54 Paul E Condon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-03-29_09:59:49, John Hasler wrote:
>>>>>>> Strong and Humble writes:
>>>>>>>> Just wanted to know if it is possible to specify a time zone that has
>>>>>>>> no winter time shift whole year?
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> A few weeks ago, my Lenny system switched over from displaying time in MST
>>>> (Mountain Standard Time) to MDT (Mountain Daylight Time). It did this, I
>>>> believe, because the switch-over is mandated in the official locale coding
>>>> for this region (Colorado). I would like to now how to take a pass on this
>>>> switch-over part of the local locale. And how to do it ahead of time, so
>>>> that for me, I don't have to find an unwanted task of undoing a unwanted
>>>> change waiting on a Sunday morning. My version of what I think OP
>>>> was asking for is a variant of locale that does not honor local
>>>> mandates for
>>>> switching to and from summer-time. It is very much a cultural thing.
>>>>
>>> Silly question why would you want to not follow local time ?
>> I do follow local *standard* time, which is the local time for the west
>> 105deg meridian. I live in Lafayette, Colorado, which is at 105deg.6'
>> west. Local time here is 24 seconds delayed from local time at the
>> central meridian of this zone, and about a minute later than the local
>> time for Denver. That is close enough for me. I'm really not an
>> extremist ;-)
>
> MDT is active for 7 months and 3 weeks, which means that it is the de
> facto standard.
It will change. The 105 west meridian, the rising and setting of the
Sun, are more lasting than a de-facto standard. I am content with what
I am doing. It is really wierd raising this little scruple to something
that it is not. I've learned how to effect a satisfactory solution to
my problem. Now I'm willing to move on.
The current standard is better described as a de-jure standard, IMHO.
Didn't Congress pass a law on this issue? But there was no budget for
going after schoff-laws, maybe. Or maybe the government is more
sensible about some enforcement than some would expect. Or maybe
some on this list misunderestimate, or whatever.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: