From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C761C5.3709CFF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Still lying.  Why?  The standard for IBM PCs and compatibles is and =
has always been to use local time.

Rich

  "mike"  wrote in message =
news:u9a1v2dj2imvmmkbdcf2elnqk5pglft297{at}4ax.com...


  Linux and the BSDs can accommodate the Windows' local-time setting of
  the hardware clock.  They are far more flexible than Windows because
  they can use both the local-time setting and the standard UTC setting.


   /m





  On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:48:42 -0500, "Geo."  wrote:

  >Linux (I've not run BSD) follows the standard, it doesn't reset my =
clock=20
  >when I dual boot with Windows and it does display the correct time.
  >
  >Geo.
  >
  >"Rich"  wrote in message news:45ed93ef$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  >   The standard is what it is.  mike miller questioned why linux and =
the=20
  >BSDs fail to follow it.  I guess you can feel better if you redefine =
what=20
  >they do as the new standard and ignore that some software do follow =
the=20
  >existing standard.
  >
  >Rich
  >
  >  "Don Hills"  wrote in message=20
  >news:zhV7FtgaXWnf092yn{at}attglobal.net...
  >  In article , "Rich"  wrote:
  >  >   The early IBM PCs worked without an OS so you are fishing to =
switch
  >  >the standard from the PC.
  >
  >  The only fishy part is you doing your standard red herring drag.
  >
  >  >The history is irrelevant as the standard is
  >  >what it is and according to mike miller, linux and the BSDs fail =
to
  >  >follow it.
  >
  >  "History is irrelevant"? "The standard is what it
(happens to be at =
the
  >  moment)"?   No wonder we're in the mess we're discussing.
  >
  >  --=20
  >  Don Hills
------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C761C5.3709CFF0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Still
lying.  =
Why?  The=20
standard for IBM PCs and compatibles is and has always been to use
= local=20
time.
 
Rich
 

  "mike" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote=20
  in message news:u9a1v2dj2im=
vmmkbdcf2elnqk5pglft297{at}4ax.com...Linux=20
  and the BSDs can accommodate the Windows' local-time setting ofthe =

  hardware clock.  They are far more flexible than Windows =
becausethey=20
  can use both the local-time setting and the standard UTC=20
 
setting. /mOn
Tue, 6 Mar 2007 =

  21:48:42 -0500, "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> =
wrote:>Linux=20
  (I've not run BSD) follows the standard, it doesn't reset my clock=20
  >when I dual boot with Windows and it does display the correct=20
 
time.>>Geo.>>"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in =
message news:45ed93ef$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>  =20
  The standard is what it is.  mike miller questioned why linux and =
the=20
  >BSDs fail to follow it.  I guess you can feel
better if =
you=20
  redefine what >they do as the new standard and ignore that some =

  software do follow the >existing=20
 
standard.>>Rich>> 
"Don Hills" <black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.commailto:black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.com">black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.com
A>>=20
  wrote in message =
>news:zhV7FtgaXWnf092yn{at}attglobal.net...> =20
  In article <45ec4a2f$1{at}w3.nls.net>,">mailto:45ec4a2f$1{at}w3.nls.net">45ec4a2f$1{at}w3.nls.net>,
=
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:> 
>   The early IBM PCs =
worked=20
  without an OS so you are fishing to switch> 
>the =
standard from=20
  the PC.>>  The only fishy part
is you doing your =
standard=20
  red herring drag.>> 
>The history is irrelevant =
as the=20
  standard is>  >what it is and according
to mike miller, =
linux=20
  and the BSDs fail to>  >follow =
it.>> =20
  "History is irrelevant"? "The standard is what it (happens
to be at=20
  the>  moment)"?   No
wonder we're in the mess =
we're=20
  discussing.>>  --
>  Don=20
Hills

------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C761C5.3709CFF0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5