Re: time zone and UTC issue [rant]
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 10:40 -0800, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 09:04, Ralf Mardorf <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 08:45 -0800, unruh wrote:
> >> In linux.debian.user, you wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 08:44 -0300, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> >> >> Yep. Unfortunately Microsoft never learned in > 25 years that the
> >> >> world has more time zones than they might have imagined in DOS-times.
> >> >
> >> > They did and as I already explained, I want to have the local time for
> >> > the BIOS too.
> >> Why? Linux is designed to run the system time on UTC and to always
> >> interpret the time using /etc/localtime, usually into localtime. All
> >> filestamps are raw in UTC but interpreted into localtime. It is just
> >> silly to have the rtc/bios clock on localtime, and causes problems and
> >> has absolutely no advantages.
> > If I save BIOS settings as a file and the hwclock is set to UTC, the
> > files don't get the German time. The BIOS is the BIOS, it's neither
> > Windows, I don't use Windows, but nor the BIOS is Linux, so Linux can't
> > "translate" UTC to local time, when I save BIOS settings.
> So you spend most of your time in your BIOS? Then you save your
> settings and compare that file to previous settings? And then you go
> back and do it again? And again? Is that really how you spend your
> time? :-) That seems unlikely. So why do you care?
No and I won't explain why this could be important, snce it doesn't
matter. But try to imagine that it might be important and that companies
take care about this, among others, Microsoft does take care. And I
still don't use Microsoft, but have other reasons to use local time.
> > Under Linux I never noticed any disadvantage, when the hwclock is set to
> > local time. Why should there be issues?
> By and large, I don't think you will see any issues.
Exactly, there are no issues when using Linux with the hardware clock
using local time.
I don't say that UTC always is an disadvantage, I just try to say, that
for some usages it is an disadvantage.
Nobody does explain for what usage UTC is an advantage.
> Assuming you have
> a proper time zone set, your computer will repeat an hour every year.
> That might cause problems (if your computer is on during that hour).
> But these problems are known so software might work around it. Lots of
> people dual boot with Windows (which forces them to use local time) so
> you should be okay.
So still no issues when using local time, but still an advantage when
using local time.
> As others have mentioned: UNIX uses UTC.
So until now no explanation why this should be better, but I already
give an explanation, why this is less good.
But somebody already blamed Microsoft as idiots. They are idiots, but
not regarding to this issue.
> That's the smart thing to do
> because it's reliable (independent of time zones and summer/winter
> time) and every timestamp is fixed. By using local time you are
> swimming against the current but I don't think the current is all that
> strong. :-) It just seems to me that doing something that is
> suboptimal for the sake of a BIOS' settings file's timestamp is a bit
I don't have an disadvantage, I'm using Linux since November 2003,
there's no Windows on my machine (excepted of XP on VBox). 9 years
without an issue using local time, but the advantage that the BIOS can
add the correct timestamp too.
So what is the advantage of using UTC? Until now I only see an
disadvantage using UTC.
Errare humanum est, sed in errare perseverare diabolicum ;).
If I'm mistaken and there should really be an disadvantage using local
time, can somebody please explain it? If not, why cherish something that
has the disadvantage I mentioned? And why always talking about
Microsoft? This is a Linux list. The BIOS is needed by Linux too.