On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:50:55PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > On 2009-03-29_11:15:15, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On 2009-03-29 10:49, Paul E Condon wrote: > >> On 2009-03-29_22:29:41, Strong and Humble wrote: > >>> Good day. [snip] > > If you only have Linux on your computer, then it's clock is most likely > > UTC. > > On a Linux computer, the internal clock is almost certainly *NOT* UTC, > rather it is "seconds since Unix Epoch", often shortened to "seconds beg to differ, I believe the time is kept relative to UTC and the recording method is unix time > since Epoch", or just "Unix time". All the stuff about displaying year, > month, day, AM/PM, and other human cultural things is done in software > that reads the Unix clock and translates the reading into one of many > different forms with which humans are more comfortable. > > The issue, for me, has been which of these human forms is displayed on > my computer, and how do I control that choice. I think it would be > crazy to switch to a different clock internally in the computer. It is > seconds since Epoch, and always will be, so long as Linux/Unix/POSIX > exists, IMHO. > > UTC is available as a translation. You can get it, if you want, by > selecting "Etc:UTC" in dpkg-reconfigure tzdata. I believe all this does is change the default system time zone try this date ; TZ=UTC date Tue Mar 31 07:57:14 EST 2009 Mon Mar 30 20:57:14 UTC 2009 date is sensitive to the TZ variable I am in Oz > > You can display a decimal representation of the binary number in the > Unix clock in your computer by issuing the command "date +%s". > > > > > Anyway, what's the purpose of why you want to do this? To confuse > > yourself when looking at any other clock? > > > -- "As far as the legal hassling and wrangling and posturing in Florida, I would suggest you talk to our team in Florida led by Jim Baker." - George W. Bush 11/30/2000 Crawford, TX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature