Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format
- From: Ron Johnson <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:14:46 -0500
- Message-id: <4C0531F6.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20100530055859.GA7798@xenon.home.lan> <20100530080459.GC8211@think.homelan> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100530155947.GA4018@think.homelan> <email@example.com> <20100530225114.GF4018@think.homelan> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100531090754.GB12277@think.homelan> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
(YYYYMMDD_<Roll number of that date>_<framenumber>_<subject string>).
This way, the default order of listing is always chronological. And for
the cases where I do not know the YYYY or MM or DD, I just use zeros.
Works pretty well. In fact, there is no other date format that can work
Further, the ISO date format has a structure where the resolution gets
finer as go towards the right. YYYY->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?