* Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com> [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> Hi,
>
> Try this:
>
> date -d@1234567890
$ date -d@1234567890
Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
I'd read about this on Linux Today a day or two back. Another
interesting time milestone.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 11:36 AM
Peter Hugosson-Miller
Friday the 13th
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -d@1234567890
Hugo
pehu@linux624:~$ date -d@1234567890
date: invalid date `@1234567890'
pehu@linux624:~$
Woohoo!
--
Best Regards
Peter Hugosson-Miller
This email has been scanned by the DefenderSoft Email Threat Protection.
For more information please visit www.emailthreatcenter.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Jordi Moles Blanco
Friday the 13th
En/na Peter Hugosson-Miller ha escrit:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -d@1234567890
Hugo
pehu@linux624:~$ date -d@1234567890
date: invalid date `@1234567890'
pehu@linux624:~$
Woohoo!
??????????????????? That's not the answer you are supposed to get.
This is:
ds feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
ohh... how romantic is that ...
Thanks Hugo for the info
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 12:30 PM
Thierry Chatelet
Friday the 13th
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com> [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > date -d@1234567890
>
> $ date -d@1234567890
> Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
>
> I'd read about this on Linux Today a day or two back. Another
> interesting time milestone.
>
> - Nate >>
>
> --
>
> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
> possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
>
> Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
How srange:
$ date -d@1234567890
Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 12:35 PM
Brad Rogers
Friday the 13th
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:30:20 +0100
Thierry Chatelet <tchatelet@free.fr> wrote:
Hello Thierry,
> $ date -d@1234567890
> Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
And;
Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 GMT 2009
So, TZ dependant, then.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
It's not your heart, it's your bank I want to break
It's Yer Money - Wonder Stuff
02-10-2009, 12:47 PM
Thomas Flaig
Friday the 13th
Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2009 14:30 schrieb Thierry Chatelet:
> On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > * Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com> [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> > > Try this:
> > > date -d@1234567890
> > $ date -d@1234567890
> > Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
> How srange:
> $ date -d@1234567890
> Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
CET vs CST: Different time zones
CST: Central Standard Time UTC-6h
CET: Central European Time UTC+1h
Difference 7h, and
Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 +7h = Sat Feb 14 00:31:30
Acctually this is a good reason to introduce the use of UTC not only for
the BIOS but also for the user interface!
Thomas
--
Thomas Flaig
mailto: thomas.flaig@unibw.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 01:16 PM
Ron Johnson
Friday the 13th
On 02/10/2009 07:30 AM, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com> [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
Hi,
Try this:
date -d@1234567890
$ date -d@1234567890
Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
I'd read about this on Linux Today a day or two back. Another
interesting time milestone.
How srange:
$ date -d@1234567890
Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
What's so strange about people in different time zones getting
different results?
$ date -d@1234567890
Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
$ date --utc -d@1234567890
Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 01:35 PM
Thierry Chatelet
Friday the 13th
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:16:49 Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/10/2009 07:30 AM, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> >> * Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com> [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Try this:
> >>>
> >>> date -d@1234567890
<SNIP>
> >> $ date -d@1234567890
> >> Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
> What's so strange about people in different time zones getting
> different results?
>
> $ date -d@1234567890
> Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
>
> $ date --utc -d@1234567890
> Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009
>
Because according to man date:
-d, --date=STRING
display time described by STRING, not ‘now’
my guess was that string is not time zone related. Maybe I am wrong. But I
change my time zone to Pacific time, adjust the machine time to Pacific time,
and I still got the same answer! So, I still find it strange. My machine is
set UTC time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 02:52 PM
Dave Sherohman
Friday the 13th
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 03:35:35PM +0100, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> Because according to man date:
> -d, --date=STRING
> display time described by STRING, not ???now???
>
> my guess was that string is not time zone related. Maybe I am wrong. But I
> change my time zone to Pacific time, adjust the machine time to Pacific time,
> and I still got the same answer! So, I still find it strange. My machine is
> set UTC time.
Epoch times are the number of seconds past 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC.
1234567890 seconds past then is Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009, which
corresponds to different local times in each time zone.
Now, why your computer continued to give a result in Central European
Time when you say you'd changed time zones to Pacific Time, I can't say,
beyond that you obviously missed something since it was still displaying
CET instead of PST by default.
(Although, when you say the machine is set to UTC time, that leads me to
suspect that you may be referring to the hardware clock, not to the time
zone setting which is used for display... They're completely
independent of each other.)
--
Dave Sherohman
NomadNet, Inc.
http://nomadnetinc.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
02-10-2009, 03:01 PM
Mark Allums
Friday the 13th
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -d@1234567890
Hugo
Totally irrelevant, but: Isn't the Linux epoch 64 bits? Thus, what?
Anything? Aside from the sun becoming a white dwarf before it rolls over.
$date -d@9876543210
Fri Dec 22 14:13:30 CST 2282
Mark Allums
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Friday the 13th
