Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!eutrc3!wsincc
From: wsincc@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Wim van Dorst)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: C. E. Chew's new ls.c
Keywords: ls commands
Message-ID: <874@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl>
Date: 28 Aug 89 07:44:42 GMT
References: <1618@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 17

In article <1618@cod.NOSC.MIL> hall@cod.NOSC.MIL (Robert R. Hall) writes:
>I have observed that this ls print dates that are more the a
>year old for the year as 3888 instead of 1988

I had a similar problem with a ls.c submitted by Mr. Housel some
time ago. He pointed out to me that my localtime() (the official
1.4a version of it) is broken according to the Unix books. It
should give YEAR-1900, instead is gives the year itself. 
You can either mend the localtime() function, or adapt ls.c.

The question of myself:
there have been I believe three postings of ls.c's recently. As
the one by Mr. Housel is written for speedy display I am
extremely happy with it. Has any tried them all and if so: How do
they compare?

Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim van Dorst, wsincc@tuerc3.urc.tue.nl