Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 04/02/2011 12:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:


I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the
heck says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) and *monumentally
shortsighted* (did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).


OpenVMS does it one of the two Right Ways of displaying time
(01-Apr-2011 23:27:41) and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858
00:00:00.00 (modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory for satellite tracking) and keeps time in a
signed 64 bit integer using 100ns resolution).


When, of course, the Smithsonian launched their first satellite! (Jules
Verne was a consultant.)


and I thought the silly season was yesterday--doug

--
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4D96B7F7.8060705@optonline.net">http://lists.debian.org/4D96B7F7.8060705@optonline.net

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 04/02/2011 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:

On 02/04/11 15:40, Ron Johnson wrote:

On 04/01/2011 11:17 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:

On 02/04/11 14:57, Kelly Clowers wrote:

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:23, Scott Ferguson

[snip]


Why not use the Debian standard??
day-of-week, dd month yyyy hh:mm:ss +zzzz


Too verbose, not sortable

Cheers,
Kelly Clowers





So...
the RFC standards for internet communication is not good enough?
or the Debian Policy standard
or the standard of *this* mailing list:-
(eg. as used in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/04/msg00141.html)

And *you* can't sort the in-place standards?

Let me guess - do you also use the imperial measurement system?
Did someone mention Cultural Imperialism earlier?
;-p


I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck
says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) and *monumentally shortsighted*
(did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).



Um, apropos of what (Unix time)??



I don't understand your question.



OpenVMS does it one of the two Right Ways


There's two "right" ways?? :-)



I know you're trying to be funny, but sure: there's usually more than
one way to skin a cat. In this case, the other Right Way (or should I
say Ways) are ISO 8601.



of displaying time
(01-Apr-2011 23:27:41)


Which *is* RFC 2822....


and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00
(modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory for satellite tracking) and keeps time in a signed 64 bit
integer using 100ns resolution).



Interesting...

Cheers





--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally
corrupt."
Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4D9709F2.1080203@cox.net">http://lists.debian.org/4D9709F2.1080203@cox.net

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 04/02/2011 12:45 AM, Doug wrote:

On 04/02/2011 12:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:


I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the
heck says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) and *monumentally
shortsighted* (did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).

OpenVMS does it one of the two Right Ways of displaying time
(01-Apr-2011 23:27:41) and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858
00:00:00.00 (modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory for satellite tracking) and keeps time in a
signed 64 bit integer using 100ns resolution).


When, of course, the Smithsonian launched their first satellite! (Jules
Verne was a consultant.)

and I thought the silly season was yesterday--doug



Sigh. The things that we stick up in orbit using rockets are *man-made*
satellites.


--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally
corrupt."
Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4D970B50.4030408@cox.net">http://lists.debian.org/4D970B50.4030408@cox.net

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:23:31PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Why not use the Debian standard??
> Reasoning - it's already been extensively debated *and* voted on, it's a
> system already in place, it's the "Debian" way.
>
> (Is there more than one (Debian standard)?)
>
> >From :-
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog
>
> The date has the following format[17] (compatible and with the same
> semantics of RFC 2822 and RFC 5322):
>
> day-of-week, dd month yyyy hh:mm:ss +zzzz

I'm not the one who typed the initial date of "04/01/11". Had the Debian
standard of "Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700" been used, there would have
been no ambiguity, now would there?

Further, why do all that typing on a mailing list thread, when "2011-04-01"
is, oh I don't know, _one_ _third_ the length, and still retains
unambiguity?

Heh. You can do things the short way or the long way. I'll take the short
way.

--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

In <4D96A8C3.9080208@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
>I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck
>says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?)
>and *monumentally shortsighted*
>(did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).

What makes you say this is UNIX time? The UNIX standard provides many ways of
displaying a time, and AFAIK, doesn't really prefer any particular string
format.

For me, UNIX time is nanoseconds from Epoch. The time_t and clock_t types are
allowed to be signed and any reasonable size. The timespec structure
specifically records nanosecond and interprets a time_t as seconds. The
clock_t type was "always" in microseconds in SUSv2, but even then there was
warning that it might change.

Traditionally, UNIX-like systems have used a 32-bit signed time_t, but I'm
pretty sure all the *BSDs (including Mac OS X) and the Linux kernel have moved
beyond that. I'm not sure about AIX and Solaris. I'm pretty sure there won't
be anymore HP-UX.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 04/02/2011 06:31 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

In<4D96A8C3.9080208@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:

I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck
says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?)
and *monumentally shortsighted*
(did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).


What makes you say this is UNIX time? The UNIX standard provides many ways of
displaying a time, and AFAIK, doesn't really prefer any particular string
format.



Because that's traditionally how ls presents the file date.


For me, UNIX time is nanoseconds from Epoch. The time_t and clock_t types are


The Epoch is still 01-Jan-1970.


allowed to be signed and any reasonable size.


Which is still 32 bits on 32-bit Linux.

$ cat time_t.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

int main (int argc, char **argv )
{
printf("bits in time_t = %d
", sizeof(time_t) * 8);
printf("bits in clock_t = %d
", sizeof(clock_t) * 8);
}

$ gcc time_t.c

$ ./a.out
bits in time_t = 32
bits in clock_t = 32



The timespec structure
specifically records nanosecond and interprets a time_t as seconds. The
clock_t type was "always" in microseconds in SUSv2, but even then there was
warning that it might change.



Which breaks binary compatibility.


Traditionally, UNIX-like systems have used a 32-bit signed time_t, but I'm
pretty sure all the *BSDs (including Mac OS X) and the Linux kernel have moved
beyond that. I'm not sure about AIX and Solaris. I'm pretty sure there won't
be anymore HP-UX.



--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally
corrupt."
Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4D97BCCB.3090001@cox.net">http://lists.debian.org/4D97BCCB.3090001@cox.net

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 02/04/11 23:35, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:23:31PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> Why not use the Debian standard??

^ It *was* a question, and I *was* soliciting an answer.

>> Reasoning - it's already been extensively debated *and* voted on, it's a
>> system already in place, it's the "Debian" way.
>>
>> (Is there more than one (Debian standard)?)

^ Again I was asking a question.
>>
>> >From :-
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog
>>
>> The date has the following format[17] (compatible and with the same
>> semantics of RFC 2822 and RFC 5322):
>>
>> day-of-week, dd month yyyy hh:mm:ss +zzzz


The above is a "selective" re-quoting of my original post - possibly the
cause of confusion.
The short form is ddmmyyyy - which I agree, is ambiguous. Whilst widely
practised, like the metric system. it's not universal. I suspect that's
why the ISO standard for an abreviated date format runs - left-to-right,
highest-to-lowest eg 20110401. An emminently sensible solution in many
circumstances.

>
> I'm not the one who typed the initial date of "04/01/11".

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/04/msg00007.html

> Had the Debian
> standard of "Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700" been used, there would have
> been no ambiguity, now would there?

Agreed - simply 1 April or April 1 (April Fool!) should have been
sufficient.

I don't know how others see posts from the debian-user list, perhaps
their method strips out or rewrites the date(?). While Freeman *did*
write the date USA style - the date of the post, shown in the post *is*
unambiguous.
The way my mail appears, as a subscriber to the debian-user list (not
gmane or whatever), makes writing the current date into a post doubly
redundant... ;-p

I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)

>
> Further, why do all that typing on a mailing list thread, when "2011-04-01"
> is, oh I don't know, _one_ _third_ the length, and still retains
> unambiguity?
>
> Heh. You can do things the short way or the long way. I'll take the short
> way.
>

Indeed (and agreed).
Perhaps even, "why type it at all if the mailing list date stamp makes
the process redundant?" :-D
(Please note that's not a criticism of your comments Aaron)

Now just imagine the trollfest/flamewar that *would* occur if the
Canterbury Distribution had been a reality instead of a brilliantly
orchestrated prank! (the result of half a dozen FOSS people getting
drunk at the Delirium Cafe in Brussels a couple of months ago??)

Cheers

--
Tuttle? His name's Buttle.
There must be some mistake.
Mistake? [Chuckles]
We don't make mistakes.
[Crash]
–That's bloody typical!
They've gone back to metric
without telling us.

"Brazil" - Terry Gilliam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D97BD3A.9040802@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4D97BD3A.9040802@gmail.com

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)

I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that case,
context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Not major
one, a very minor one. But a problem - and one with a very easy solution. I
prefer the 11-04-01 (or 2011-04-01) solution to the one I myself offered,
because month names in a foreign language (and for many here English is a
foreign language), whilst certainly unambiguous, may be confusing.

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201104030754.36535.lisi.reisz@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201104030754.36535.lisi.reisz@gmail.com

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)
>
> I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that case,
> context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Not major
> one, a very minor one. But a problem - and one with a very easy solution. I
> prefer the 11-04-01 (or 2011-04-01)

Either of those options works for me.

> solution to the one I myself offered,
> because month names in a foreign language (and for many here English is a
> foreign language), whilst certainly unambiguous, may be confusing.
>
> Lisi
>
>

ddmmyy mmddyy type expressions are a pain more often than not (16+ days
a month) - because I can't tell which one is which (dd or mm).
Out of curiosity - I've attached a (tiny) screenscrape of how a post
appears in Thunderbird (yeah I know, but the rest of things are Debian).
I guess the date format on the left is from the list, and the one on the
right is from my system... are my assumptions correct? Also - is that
how others have their dates displayed?

Cheers

--
Tuttle? His name's Buttle.
There must be some mistake.
Mistake? [Chuckles]
We don't make mistakes.

Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
 

On 3 April 2011 19:06, Scott Ferguson <prettyfly.productions@gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote:

> On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:

>> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)

>

> I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. Â*But mine was not. Â*In that case,

> context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Â*Not Â*major

> one, a very minor one. Â*But a problem - and one with a very easy solution. Â*I

> prefer the 11-04-01 (or 2011-04-01)



Either of those options works for me.



> solution to the one I myself offered,

> because month names in a foreign language (and for many here English is a

> foreign language), whilst certainly unambiguous, may be confusing.

>
<snip>
Â*
The logical progression, in the English language and not the American dialect, is 'day' of the 'month' of the specified 'year'. dd/mm/yy.

This is obvious.
Anything else is the calender equivalent of top-posting.

Thanking you, for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,

Weaver.
--

Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful.

— Lucius Annæus Seneca.

Terrorism, the new religion.