Carlos E. R. wrote on 2014-10-08 12:59 (UTC+0200):
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".
Hence, do *not* "have to be interpreted", and have nothing relevant to be relative to except themselves. Whatever the FAT filesystem reports, is what there is. It is what *it* is. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org