Re: [tlug] Ubuntu 13.10 clock problems (was: Ibus and Ubuntu based)

[Benjamin Tayehanpour <benjamin@example.com>]

Also, sorry for double-posting. I saw some other things I should have
caught in the first read-through.


On 14 November 2013 03:41, Lyle H Saxon <llletters@example.com> wrote:
> Well, based on the word "modified", I would prefer a file not be
> considered modified unless there has been some change.  Maybe someone
> could/can change that to "generation" or something to indicate that
> it's not the straight-from-the-camera-electronics generation of the
> file.  If a file is opened in a photo viewing/editing application and
> then re-saved, running the jpeg compression again, that's a real
> modification, but I really don't think the term "modify" is at all
> accurate for a digital file that is simply re-saved in a new location.

Well, the verb "to modify" comes from Latin "modificare", which is an
amalgam of "modus" and "facere". "Facere" means "to make" (you can see
shadows of facere in "factory", "artificial", "benefit", to name a
few). So depending on how you look at it, creation is quite literally
within the scope of modification.

Even if you don't look at it that way: Couldn't it be that the
modification date is concerning the role of the file in the file
system and not the file itself? That's an actual question, by the way,
not a rhetorical one. It sure would explain some other things.

> Yeah - well, I suppose the most convenient thing to do would be to
> change the (nearly meaningless) file names generated by a camera into
> a date and time so I don't have to worry about erratic behavior by
> different software when moving pictures from one machine to another.

Wouldn't it be more convenient to rely on the EXIF data directly when
needed? Copying information from the EXIF headers to the file name
feels like needless duplication of data.