Just saw your message by chance. I read this list only on gmane.
Replying to ML now.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> Doesn't the scanning software at least set the digitization time to the
> time at which you scanned the photos in?
Yes, it does. But that is of no use to
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
...
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date
format is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 2
Stephan Seitz wrote:
...
That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses
[whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system
is], one can read the ISO date format.
Only if you know, it is ISO date format.
Oh, also: Yes, but the ISO date format is fairly ea
On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
...
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date
format is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
...
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date
format is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 0
Stephan Seitz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
...
That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses
[whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system
is], one can read the ISO date format.
Only if you know, it is ISO da
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 15:44:49, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C",
> > > but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales.
> >
> > One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans >:-)
>
> In
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> From SUSv3:
>>> "The field shall contain the appropriate date and
>>> timestamp of
>>> when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall
>>> b
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 15:23:11 Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > From SUSv3:
> > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and
> > timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the
> > field shall be the equivalent of t
On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
From SUSv3:
"The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp of
when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the
equivalent of the output of the follo
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> From SUSv3:
> "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp
> of
> when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the
> equivalent of the output of the following date command:
>
> date "+%b %e
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
For me dd mmm is very clear ...
Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know?
Then I can always use „env LANG=C ls -l”.
That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one
On Sunday 30 May 2010 00:58:59 Brian Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote:
> > > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l"
> > > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO
On Ma, 01 iun 10, 10:58:09, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> >For me dd mmm is very clear ...
>
> Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know?
I think in such a case the output of ls will be the lesser of my
problems ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic di
On 01/06/10 12:14 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> jhead -n%Y%m%d-%H%M%S *.JPG
>
> It reads the date/time stamp from a pic's Exif header and then renames
> the file.
......
Not applicable if there is no exif data in the photo file ... fai
On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
...
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date
format is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
Can
On 06/01/2010 10:18 AM, H.S. wrote:
On 31/05/10 05:38 AM, Camaleón wrote:
Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as
"2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a
very well organized fit :-)
Totally agree. This is one of the main uses of ISO date format
On 31/05/10 05:38 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
> Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as
> "2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a
> very well organized fit :-)
Totally agree. This is one of the main uses of ISO date format that I
routinely take advantag
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 05/30/2010 05:51 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
[snip]
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format
is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
Can
Andrei Popescu wrote:
...
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format
is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
Can you tell if these files were created 5th marc
Andrei Popescu wrote:
For me dd mmm is very clear ...
Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know?
That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses
[whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system
is], one can read the ISO date form
On 05/31/2010 01:39 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:51:14 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing.
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date form
* On 2010 31 May 04:39 -0500, Camaleón wrote:
> Worst is that, inside my company, there are people still using just two
> digits for the year, something like "31/05/10" (it reads 31st May, 2010).
> Woow, sir, for sure is confusing (I ask them, "hey, what will happen in
> year 3010? >:-)") and th
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:07:54 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Lu, 31 mai 10, 06:39:15, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of
>> the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale
>> is" in order to correctly interpret the
On Lu, 31 mai 10, 06:39:15, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
> >
> > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd
> > really like to know)?
>
> You go
On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:51:14 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing.
>
> You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format
> is used. Let me see...
>
> -rwx
On 05/30/2010 05:51 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
[snip]
You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format
is used. Let me see...
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
Can you tell if these fi
On 05/30/2010 06:21 PM, Brian Marshall wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
-rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may?
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:52:52AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sun,30.May.10, 16:21:26, Brian Marshall wrote:
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:
On Sun,30.May.10, 16:21:26, Brian Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
> >
> > Can you tell if these files were created 5th
On Sun,30.May.10, 12:04:47, Brian Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30
> > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from
> > english, "Mai 30 2010".
>
> That lo
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
>
> Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd
> really like to know)?
I've n
On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote:
> The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look:
>
> s...@stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME
> LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8"
>
> s...@stt008:~$ ls -l
> total 1
> drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop
> drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos
> d
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 21:17, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote:
>
>> Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l"
>> has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29
>> 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 2
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30
> Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from
> english, "Mai 30 2010".
That looks like a bug in the pt_PT.UTF-8 locale. de_DE.UTF-8 gets it
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:22:55 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing.
>>
>>
> Proof of your brilliance is that you think just like me!
Oh. I'll take that as a "compliment".
(He, he... ju
On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote:
Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date
representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization
madness,
Why "madn
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date
>> representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization
>> madness,
>
> Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* ou
On 05/30/2010 11:23 AM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:58:59PM -0700, Brian Marshall wrote:
Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make
The new default was the default years ago. Then it was changed to the
ISO format output. Since then I hated it. The I
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:58:59PM -0700, Brian Marshall wrote:
Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make
The new default was the default years ago. Then it was changed to the ISO
format output. Since then I hated it. The ISO format is wasting to much
space and is mo
On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote:
>
> Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date
> representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness,
Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* output should be easy to understand by
the user and a localized date m
On Sunday 30 May 2010 10:44:38 Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30
> Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from
> english, "Mai 30 2010".
Erratum: American or American English.
English English is also not represented
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:01:25 +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> * 2010-05-30 10:44 (+0100), Nuno Magalhães wrote:
>
>> +1 for ISO as default
>
>> Is there a way to push things into changing back?
>
> Use TIME_STYLE=long-iso or contact the GNU coreutils upstream.
It seems not working for Midnight C
On 05/29/2010 11:17 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
[snip]
Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE
environment variable, like this:
export TIME_STYLE=long-iso
Another method is the --time-style option. For example:
$ alias dir='ls -aFl --time-style=+"%F %T"'
* 2010-05-30 10:44 (+0100), Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> +1 for ISO as default
> Is there a way to push things into changing back?
Use TIME_STYLE=long-iso or contact the GNU coreutils upstream. First
search their mailing list archives for related discussions:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bu
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:19, Camaleón wrote:
> Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date
> representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness,
> so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date standard.
+1 for ISO as default
In any
On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:04:59 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat,29.May.10, 22:58:59, Brian Marshall wrote:
>>
>> Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make
>> sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or
>> UTF-8 locale? (en_US.ISO-8859, to my
* 2010-05-29 22:58 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote:
> Any idea why the default was changed?
No idea. Indeed, I think long-iso would be better default for this kind
of technical dates which are shown in tabular form. With fi_FI.UTF-8
locale the output of "ls -l" is difficult to read because the widt
On Sat,29.May.10, 22:58:59, Brian Marshall wrote:
>
> Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make
> sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or
> UTF-8 locale? (en_US.ISO-8859, to my knowledge, has always used the date
> format that en_US.UTF-8 is
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote:
>
> > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l"
> > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29
> > 20:00) but now it's started prin
* 2010-05-30 07:17 (+0300), Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Related tips here:
Here's a better link which points to the Debian Reference manual:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/debian-reference.en.html#_customized_display_of_time_and_date
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
* 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote:
> Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l"
> has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29
> 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009"
> if it's not the current year.
> I
Hi all,
Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" has
changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 20:00)
but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" if it's
not the current year.
My locale, which hasn't changed in years, is en_US.UT
53 matches
Mail list logo
