Ray Davison wrote:
Lee wrote:

I set the clock, and all is well.

How far off was your clock?

It had never been set.  It was off by years.  Auto set was active but had not yet set.  I knew it was off but was not concerned.  I thought it was just a clock.  FF knew better.  Maybe someone can get that in SM.

As a general rule, you want an accurate clock, because there are many clock-sensitive things on your computer. These include things like background activities that are run on schedule, log file entries, SSL certificate validation, and much more. Even your email relies on having an accurate clock

Arguably, showing the current time to the user the least important function of the clock.

Just yesterday, I was updating packages on a Linux virtual machine, and somehow, the VM's clock had not gotten synchronized with the host, and it was a month or so behind. When I ran the package manager for updates, I had problems because the time on the system clock was so far off, and the package manager was complaining that current packages were invalid because the time stamps were too far in the future. When I resynchronized the the clock, then the updates ran properly.

Any modern computer with Internet connectivity should have a process that regularly synchronizes against an Internet time server. In Windows, even if DOS-based Windows didn't have that, I believe NT systems (dating all the way back to 3.51) have always had that -- and it certainly was in XP.

If a system clock isn't accurate within milliseconds of the time delivered by a time server, the most common reason is that a system battery is nearly dead. That's not the main battery used on laptops, but the CMOS battery that is also used to keep BIOS settings when the computer is powered off.

support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to