Time stamps of ISOs
Hi, I only wanted to say that the time stamps of the Beta4 ISOs are a bit strange: 31.08.2004, huh? I found this on two mirror servers (the only ones in Germany and Switzerland who have caught them in time): ftp.solnet.ch and ftp.uni-erlangen.de Ciao Siegbert
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:34:47PM +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:
Hi,
I only wanted to say that the time stamps of the Beta4 ISOs are a bit strange: 31.08.2004, huh?
Now you can see how long the images are pre-tested within SUSE. ;-) Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de
Siegbert Baude schrieb:
I only wanted to say that the time stamps of the Beta4 ISOs are a bit strange: 31.08.2004, huh?
Why not ? Release date for beta4 is Sep. 1st. That does not necessarily mean that the ISOs need to have that date as well. Or do you think these Aug. 31st files are not beta4 but some fakes ? I personally don't mind these few hours (or maybe days) of "unaligned" date information. Finally the contents counts ...
I found this on two mirror servers (the only ones in Germany and Switzerland who have caught them in time): ftp.solnet.ch and ftp.uni-erlangen.de
Well, and another "problem" could be the time shift around the world. Of course swiss and german servers should not have some difference ... If you consider "activists" in NZ, AU or JP you could find differencies of approx. 8 hours or so ... It depends where the work is made. But we should not extend the discussion at this point, shouldn't we ? Best regards, Reinhard.
On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:50, Reinhard Gimbel wrote:
Siegbert Baude schrieb:
I only wanted to say that the time stamps of the Beta4 ISOs are a bit strange: 31.08.2004, huh?
Why not ? Release date for beta4 is Sep. 1st. That does not necessarily mean that the ISOs need to have that date as well.
Or do you think these Aug. 31st files are not beta4 but some fakes ?
I personally don't mind these few hours (or maybe days) of "unaligned" date information. Finally the contents counts ... A few hours yes but a whole year ???
Hi, On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Reinhard Gimbel wrote:
Dave Chapman schrieb:
A few hours yes but a whole year ???
Oops ...
I was that focused on Aug., 31st. Thus I missed the 2004.
Interesting case !
Any idea ?
The original time stamps are 2005. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
participants (5)
-
Dave Chapman -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
Reinhard Gimbel -
Robert Schiele -
Siegbert Baude