Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 12:10:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4200-Sat29Sep2001121006+0100-starksb@ebi.ac.uk> X-Mailer: 21.5 (beta2) "artichoke" XEmacs Lucid (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I); VM 6.92 under 21.5 (beta2) "artichoke" XEmacs Lucid From: David Starks-Browning MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Time-setting In-Reply-To: <3BB5BCE2.6387.332954D@localhost> References: <036d01c148c7$0c9a86f0$01000001 AT lifelesswks> <3BB5BCE2 DOT 6387 DOT 332954D AT localhost> On Saturday 29 Sep 01, Gerrit P. Haase writes: > >But I don't understand what the point is. What problem does it solve? > >I've never set TZ on Win98 or NT, and I don't see any discrepency > >between ls -l and Explorer times. So I don't know what to write in > >the FAQ. > > If I run 'date' I get differences without the TZ setting. (I get GMT output > vs. CET). I don't, on neither Win98 nor NT. You don't say what system you're using. I am on BST now, which is +0100. I'd like to understand why date needs TZ for you and not me, before trying to explain it in the FAQ. Thanks, David -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/