On 2014-10-08 08:59, Felix Miata wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on 2014-10-05 14:38 (UTC+0200):
Felix Miata wrote:
Poor as FAT is as a filesystem, it is what it is. A timestamp from a FAT filesystem should not be evaluated or interpreted, just reported. It is what *it* is.
No, it is not. FAT timestamps are relative and have to be interpreted in Linux.
Relative to what? FAT only saves local time, nothing about UTC offset. AFAICT, any "interpretation" can be no more than speculation about what the offset might have been when the file was put onto the filesystem, or some earlier date on another filesystem where it could have been copied to FAT from.
Exactly. It is an "estimate" or "educated guess". -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)