Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13769 > unrolled thread
| Started by | not.socialnetwork@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 219 — 49 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 06:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 13:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 07:59 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 21:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-02-28 22:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-02-28 18:01 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 01:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 07:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 10:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 17:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:33 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-02 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 09:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-02 17:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-02 16:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> - 2015-03-05 08:36 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 11:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-01 17:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-01 19:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-03 22:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 00:50 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 01:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-04 17:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-06 00:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-06 06:55 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 07:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 22:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 01:07 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-05 10:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 10:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 15:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 17:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:49 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 23:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-04 17:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-04 09:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 13:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 09:14 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 08:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 21:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 19:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 09:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-03-01 07:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-03-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 07:37 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-03 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 10:44 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-01 19:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 20:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 14:49 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-02-28 19:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-01 14:22 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 16:12 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-03-02 19:57 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 10:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-03 19:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:39 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-04 08:52 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:23 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:16 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-05 22:38 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-03-06 18:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-06 08:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-07 00:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 02:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-07 21:15 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-03-07 21:44 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-08 16:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-08 09:42 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-03 23:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 08:52 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-05 09:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 09:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 04:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-11 05:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-03-11 07:58 -0700
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-03-11 13:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-12 13:50 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-13 13:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 15:10 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-04-14 00:30 +1000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-04-15 22:37 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-17 02:32 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 23:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-27 13:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-13 16:22 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-13 21:14 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-13 21:55 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:29 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:11 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-04-14 05:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-04 03:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 04:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-05-04 07:54 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2015-05-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> - 2015-05-04 22:31 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-04 19:13 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 02:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> - 2015-05-05 08:04 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-05 09:22 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 18:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 23:16 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-11 17:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 07:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 08:27 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 15:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:08 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 12:41 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:03 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:59 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 22:58 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-13 01:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-13 08:14 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 09:24 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 11:50 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 18:52 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:36 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:00 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-14 23:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-14 20:58 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-15 06:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2015-04-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 05:21 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-04-16 11:42 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 12:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 13:42 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 15:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 23:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 09:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-04-16 06:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-04-16 16:32 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-17 01:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-17 06:34 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-18 23:13 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-04-13 20:39 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 20:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eodriadsqpinm5bp0is0o8korau15vcs2c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14552 |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:18:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca>
declaimed the following:
>Your suggestion that every time the computer is switched on the operator
>enter in the correct time by hand is certainly one possibility. But
>computers are supposed to make life easier, not add yet another task,
>which is sometimes impossible (eg the RPI is floating over the Pacific
>in a balloon and it resets due to a power interruption).
>
If you have a unit "floating over the Pacific in a balloon" I'd hope
you also have a GPS receiver and a telemetry beacon transmitter... The
receiver would provide a time signal, and the transmitter would provide
real-time tracking capability to a ground stations.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 06:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgkvvh$e5n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14558 |
On 2015-04-15, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:18:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> > declaimed the following: > > >>Your suggestion that every time the computer is switched on the operator >>enter in the correct time by hand is certainly one possibility. But >>computers are supposed to make life easier, not add yet another task, >>which is sometimes impossible (eg the RPI is floating over the Pacific >>in a balloon and it resets due to a power interruption). >> > If you have a unit "floating over the Pacific in a balloon" I'd hope > you also have a GPS receiver and a telemetry beacon transmitter... The > receiver would provide a time signal, and the transmitter would provide > real-time tracking capability to a ground stations. You are literal aren't you. Fine--- 1000 meters down a coal mine instead. And no there need not be any telemetry capability-- just a visit once a month. It is not true that simply having the operator enter a time and date at startup is a trivial solution to the problem. Yes solutions are possible, but often not that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 02:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsmiu9bq.8p5.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> |
| In reply to | #14552 |
On 2015-04-14, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > > The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock > since the first IBM PC.40 years ago. Actually the first IBM PC _didn't_ have a real time clock, that only came in slightly later, either the XT or AT. If you ever ran MSDOS with no autoexec.bat you'd get a reminder of this even years later since the default action was to obtain the time and date for this very reason. It's also the reason for the ~18.2Hz clock interrupt under DOS - it was contrived to overflow a 16 bit counter at the top of the hour so that the hour and date registers could be updated. > Your suggestion that every time the computer is switched on the operator > enter in the correct time by hand is certainly one possibility. But > computers are supposed to make life easier, not add yet another task, > which is sometimes impossible (eg the RPI is floating over the Pacific > in a balloon and it resets due to a power interruption). See the above, but these days why would you bother in a networked environment and ntpdate is so easy to configure? -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 05:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgndcm$9b3$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14567 |
On 16/04/15 03:58, Andrew Smallshaw wrote: > On 2015-04-14, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >> >> The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock >> since the first IBM PC.40 years ago. > > Actually the first IBM PC _didn't_ have a real time clock, that > only came in slightly later, either the XT or AT. If you ever ran > MSDOS with no autoexec.bat you'd get a reminder of this even years > later since the default action was to obtain the time and date for > this very reason. It's also the reason for the ~18.2Hz clock > interrupt under DOS - it was contrived to overflow a 16 bit counter > at the top of the hour so that the hour and date registers could > be updated. > >> Your suggestion that every time the computer is switched on the operator >> enter in the correct time by hand is certainly one possibility. But >> computers are supposed to make life easier, not add yet another task, >> which is sometimes impossible (eg the RPI is floating over the Pacific >> in a balloon and it resets due to a power interruption). > > See the above, but these days why would you bother in a networked > environment and ntpdate is so easy to configure? > Because you aren't in a networked environment? -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 11:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgo03q$n6e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14567 |
On Thursday 16 April 2015 04:58, Andrew Smallshaw conveyed the following
to comp.os.linux.misc...
> On 2015-04-14, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock
>> since the first IBM PC.40 years ago.
>
> Actually the first IBM PC _didn't_ have a real time clock, that
> only came in slightly later, either the XT or AT. [...]
The RTC was part of the AT specification, but the XT/286 also already
had one. Regular XTs did not have an RTC yet, though. ;-)
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 12:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmiv9l1.8tb.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #14569 |
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > On Thursday 16 April 2015 04:58, Andrew Smallshaw conveyed the following > to comp.os.linux.misc... > >> On 2015-04-14, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >>> >>> The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock >>> since the first IBM PC.40 years ago. >> >> Actually the first IBM PC _didn't_ have a real time clock, that >> only came in slightly later, either the XT or AT. [...] > > The RTC was part of the AT specification, but the XT/286 also already > had one. The XT/286 actually appeared AFTER the AT, to backport some of the additions of the AT into a "lower cost" XT-class system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 13:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgoaof$ui$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14574 |
On 16/04/15 13:10, Rob wrote: > Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >> On Thursday 16 April 2015 04:58, Andrew Smallshaw conveyed the following >> to comp.os.linux.misc... >> >>> On 2015-04-14, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock >>>> since the first IBM PC.40 years ago. >>> >>> Actually the first IBM PC _didn't_ have a real time clock, that >>> only came in slightly later, either the XT or AT. [...] >> >> The RTC was part of the AT specification, but the XT/286 also already >> had one. > > The XT/286 actually appeared AFTER the AT, to backport some of the > additions of the AT into a "lower cost" XT-class system. > By that time no one cared though did they? since clones and Apricots abounded by then... -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmivjur.a03.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #14575 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 16/04/15 13:10, Rob wrote: >> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >>> On Thursday 16 April 2015 04:58, Andrew Smallshaw conveyed the following >>> to comp.os.linux.misc... >>> >>>> On 2015-04-14, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock >>>>> since the first IBM PC.40 years ago. >>>> >>>> Actually the first IBM PC _didn't_ have a real time clock, that >>>> only came in slightly later, either the XT or AT. [...] >>> >>> The RTC was part of the AT specification, but the XT/286 also already >>> had one. >> >> The XT/286 actually appeared AFTER the AT, to backport some of the >> additions of the AT into a "lower cost" XT-class system. >> > By that time no one cared though did they? since clones and Apricots > abounded by then... Indeed, the XT/286 must be a very rare machine. Of course then there were still people who believed that you could never be wrong (or be blamed) when buying IBM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | druck <news@druck.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 23:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgpbsn$8ko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14576 |
On 16/04/2015 16:06, Rob wrote: > Indeed, the XT/286 must be a very rare machine. > Of course then there were still people who believed that you could > never be wrong (or be blamed) when buying IBM. We had one at work back in 1987, along with the latest EGA card (640x350 4 colours). Our BBC Micro was still faster at just about everything. You could probably emulate it faster on the Raspberry Pi using python. ---druck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 14:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1504161414200.18103@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #14552 |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-04-12, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Unknown wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:20:06 +0000, Joe Beanfish wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 04:53:11 +0000, Unknown wrote: >>>>> So, back to the algorithm: >>>>> the mathematical concept 'order' [as emphasised in the "Subject:"] is >>>>> key. When Newton was called away from his desk of paper-work, he >>>>> needed the papers to be 'stacked' in the same ORDER when he returned. >>>>> Even if the cleaning-lady, had 'been there' during his absence, and >>>>> <accessed the files>, provided the 'order' was maintained, the >>>>> real-time attributes were not needed. >>>> >>>> One option, forget the idea of timestamps entirely. Name the files with >>>> sequential numbers. Be sure to zero pad so ls works as expected. You >>>> could even do the Basic programming trick of skipping numbers (e.g. by >>>> 10s) so you could insert items higher in the queue without renumbering. >>>> >>>> 000000010-playme.mp3 >>>> 000000020-thesis.mp3 >>>> 000000030-soothing.mp3 >>>> 000000040-jamz.mp3 >>>> >>>> uh-oh, breaking news, add >>>> 000000000-sungoingnova.mp3 >>> >>> That's the kind if original good idea which we need !! >>> With the 'thread overflow' I nearly missed this 1 month old post. >>> I'll try to implement your idea, when I've cleared the chaos. >>> >> And the Raspberry Pi can't run without a Real Time Clock. > > Sorry, you are confused. RPi runs with a system clock. But it has no > Real Time clock (RTC) unless you add a harware dongle. Yes, the RPi > keeps time. But it starts out at Jan 1 1970 each time you reboot. > >> >> You wasted all this time because you pretended to no know that. >> >> Linux needs to be interrupted to actually work, so keeping time >> is intrinsic to the operating system. >> >> Like I said way back when, all you have to do is set the time and date >> when you start the Pi up, something that used to be quite common. A >> hardware clock is only used to set the time when the computer starts, >> saving you a few keystrokes, the Pi or any Linux computer doesn't get time >> from the hardware clock other times (unless someone is configuring it >> differently, and a common thing then is to access a cesium standard on the >> internet, which would be another way do to this if the Pi is networked). > > The hardware clock as you call it has been called the Real time clock > since the first IBM PC.40 years ago. > It was 35 at best. The Altair 8800 is only 40 years old this year. There was no hardware clock in the IBM PC. Endless add on boards to do that, yet all they did was save the user from having to enter the time every time they turned on their computer. The software didn't go to the hardware clock every time it needed to time stamp a file, it used the software clock that wsa keeping track of real time. My Radio Shack Color Computer had no hardware clock, yet it kept track of real time when I ran Microware OS-9 on it. All I had to do is enter the time and date on startup, and the files were timestamped. Circa 1976 you would have seen a very different definition, and since I at lwast wsa reading the computer magazines back then, I'm not confused. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unknown <dog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 09:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.03.04.10.06.57@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #13828 |
On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:22:25 -0500, Michael Black wrote: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, not.socialnetwork@gmail.com wrote: --smip > If the Raspberry Pi really does not have a hardware clock to keep track > of the time when it's turned off, then all you need to do is manually > set the time once you turn on the computer. The utility has to be > there, it has other uses. Wow!! How do *I* [want to] know the time?! We use computers to automate! I switch the battery-powered rPi on & off in the darkness, through a mosquito-net. > > Michael > >> So the important abilty to 'evaluate' files by their recentcy >> is lost. >> It's a universal truth that you'll want to get the most-recent >> cup-of-coffee and not the 17th most-recent that you put-down. That's >> why stacks are used. >> >> What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? >> >> ==TIA. >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 06:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mgo214$h9u$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #13828 |
On 03/01/2015 02:22 PM, Michael Black wrote: > > A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so > often, and the software that counts those interruptions. too many blocks can disrupt the clock
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgo73g$phj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14570 |
On 16/04/15 11:13, ruben safir wrote: : >> >> A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so >> often, and the software that counts those interruptions. > Not ion most peoples vocab it ain't. A real time clock is a clock that knows real-world time. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 16:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <asi50c-fs42.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #14572 |
On 04/16/15 07:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/04/15 11:13, ruben safir wrote: > : >>> >>> A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so >>> often, and the software that counts those interruptions. >> > Not ion most peoples vocab it ain't. > > A real time clock is a clock that knows real-world time. > > > A real-time clock (RTC) is a computer clock (most often in the form of an integrated circuit) that keeps track of the current time. Although the term often refers to the devices in personal computers, servers and embedded systems, RTCs are present in almost any electronic device which needs to keep accurate time. Although keeping time can be done without an RTC,[1] using one has benefits: Low power consumption[2] (important when running from alternate power) Frees the main system for time-critical tasks Sometimes more accurate than other methods A GPS receiver can shorten its startup time by comparing the current time, according to its RTC, with the time at which it last had a valid signal.[3] If it has been less than a few hours, then the previous ephemeris is still usable. The RTC was introduced to PC compatibles by the IBM PC/AT in 1984, which used a Motorola MC146818 RTC. Later, Dallas Semiconductor made compatible RTCs, which were often used in older personal computers, and are easily found on motherboards because of their distinctive black battery cap and silkscreened logo. In newer systems, the RTC is integrated into the southbridge chip.[10] Some microcontrollers have a real-time clock built in, generally only the ones with many other features and peripherals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 01:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgpp3r$amt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14570 |
On 2015-04-16, ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote: > On 03/01/2015 02:22 PM, Michael Black wrote: >> >> A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so >> often, and the software that counts those interruptions. No, you are getting the two clocks confused. The RTC was a real clock which you could read and get from it the year month day hour minute second. It could be set up to set an interrupt on the second. The computer system clock was a set of interrupts from the crystal driving the cpu, which was and is designed to issue an interrupt once every 1/18 sec originally and now more frequently but had nothing but the interrupt. No time information. That was the duty of the interrupt routine which counted the interrupts and assignes a time to them. > > too many blocks can disrupt the clock
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 06:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgq61l$k01$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14588 |
On 17/04/15 02:54, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-04-16, ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote: >> On 03/01/2015 02:22 PM, Michael Black wrote: >>> >>> A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so >>> often, and the software that counts those interruptions. > > No, you are getting the two clocks confused. The RTC was a real clock > which you could read and get from it the year month day hour minute > second. It could be set up to set an interrupt on the second. > The computer system clock was a set of interrupts from the crystal > driving the cpu, which was and is designed to issue an interrupt once > every 1/18 sec originally and now more frequently but had nothing but > the interrupt. No time information. That was the duty of the interrupt > routine which counted the interrupts and assignes a time to them. However IIRC the MSDOS version of time and date was updated by the 18Hz timer interrupt (in fact it was usually programmable: I had it running over 1Khz on one project). It wasn't very accurate at all. We were well into Win98 or so before NTP time became available on PCs and one could guarantee that a roomful of them were more or less marking files with the same timestamps. >> >> too many blocks can disrupt the clock -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-18 23:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ti3DT4zmctMVFwYt@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #14588 |
In comp.sys.raspberry-pi message <mgpp3r$amt$1@dont-email.me>, Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:54:03, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> posted: > ... >The computer system clock was a set of interrupts from the crystal >driving the cpu, which was and is designed to issue an interrupt once >every 1/18 sec originally and now more frequently but had nothing but >the interrupt. No time information. That was the duty of the interrupt >routine which counted the interrupts and assignes a time to them. Not quite, I think. The interrupt routine only counted and tested for having reached, IIRC, hex 1800B0, at which it set a count of 0 and set a "tomorrow" flag. The standard routines for accessing date and time, if the flag had been set, first incremented a daycount and cleared the flag; then they translated the counts to Y M D or H M S C. The effects of directly setting hex 1800B0 or more were mildly amusing. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05. Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 20:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87wq1f1o9t.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #13769 |
not.socialnetwork writes: > What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? Set up a cron job to touch a file every minute. At bootup set the system clock to one minute after the mtime on the touched file (check the file before cron touches it). Your system time will then always be monotonically increasing and your timestamps will always be in the correct order. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmipdtb.4e8.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #14530 |
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > not.socialnetwork writes: >> What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? > > Set up a cron job to touch a file every minute. At bootup set the > system clock to one minute after the mtime on the touched file (check > the file before cron touches it). Your system time will then always be > monotonically increasing and your timestamps will always be in the > correct order. In fact, the Rasperry Pi already has that. It is called fake-hwclock. But it apparently is not sufficient for the hypothetical use case.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web