Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: UUCP status files and wierd dates - revisted. Message-ID: <2131.275127e1@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Date: 26 Nov 90 19:34:09 GMT References: <736@dynasys.UUCP> <803@sci34hub.UUCP> <754@dynasys.UUCP> <967@iiasa.UUCP> Lines: 32 In article <967@iiasa.UUCP>, wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) writes: > In article <754@dynasys.UUCP> jessea@dynasys.UUCP () writes: >>In article <803@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) wrote the following: >>>The date is the internal format, which is defined as the number of seconds >>>since January 1, 1970. (Reportedly day 0, year 0, of the age of Unix.) >> >>WHY is this date used? WHY can't the beginning of the year be used instead? >>It seems like a waste of resources to compute a date from the number of >>seconds given for a twenty year old date - especially if so many programs > > Well, how would you do this? If you stored dates as computed from the > beginning of the year (I presume you mean the current year), then you > need to also store the current year somewhere. Just as easy, if not > easier, to use a known reference date. > > What I do not understand, however, is why a number of MS-DOS compilers > instead used 01/01/80 as the "epoch" for their UNIX-like ctime > functions. Same reason. The world began on 01/01/80. If you take your copy of MSDOS to a machine that does not have a clock/calendar chip to initialize the MSDOS time of day clock and boot it, you will find that the date ie 1 January 1980. dan herrick herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com > -- > W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria > PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net > FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp > HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET