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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
