ls has stopped using the ISO date format
in [Debian]
|
Prev: Update GRUB to GRUB2 / Lenny to Squeeze
Next: Blockage on Internet maps - is a firewall intervening? Was: Re: PART DIAGNOSED: Re: Trying to install Google Earth on Lenny. How on earth??????
From: Lisi on 30 May 2010 08:00 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, since we too put day month year. So +1 for ISO. Does away with all this parochialism! Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201005301257.56411.lisi.reisz(a)gmail.com
From: Andrei Popescu on 30 May 2010 12:10 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 makes sense. > so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date > standard. Even if ISO is a standard, it's not the *usual* representation of a date for too many users to use it as a default. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
From: Stephan Seitz on 30 May 2010 12:40 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 more difficult to read. I was told, that the ISO format was chosen to make it simplier to pipe the output to another program. Well, this is certainly true, but in most cases I donât use a pipe. Luckily, --time-style=locale changed the format back to the good old ways. It seems, upstream is now thinking again, that the localized output is the better one. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse(a)fsing.rootsland.net | | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |
From: Ron Johnson on 30 May 2010 13:10 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 ISO format is wasting to > much space and is more difficult to read. > I was told, that the ISO format was chosen to make it simplier to pipe > the output to another program. Well, this is certainly true, but in most > cases I don�t use a pipe. > Luckily, --time-style=locale changed the format back to the good old ways. > > It seems, upstream is now thinking again, that the localized output is > the better one. Thus is the beauty of choice and FLOSS, since I *want* ISO format and frequently use it's regularized date format in filters. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4C029AE8.9090903(a)cox.net
From: Camaleón on 30 May 2010 14:10
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* output should be easy to understand by > the user and a localized date makes sense. No sir, the localized format it's a mess. The only date format understable by *any* user in the world is the ISO format, we all should move to that. >> so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date >> standard. > > Even if ISO is a standard, it's not the *usual* representation of a date > for too many users to use it as a default. The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: sm01(a)stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" sm01(a)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 drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. "May 16", the same. "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... Let's try with the long iso format: sm01(a)stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso sm01(a)stt008:~$ ls -l total 1 drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.05.30.18.05.43(a)gmail.com |