Just going on logic here, but I'm assuming you should first log on Windows and ensure that the time is correct there, so the system time is local time, then switch to Linux and apply that setting before it syncs (since if it does, system time would become UTC again). Maybe make sure Linux can't connect to sync right away.
Alternately, apply the setting in Linux, switch to Windows, sync the time to make sure it's correct there, then switch back to Linux, and it should also be correct.

As for the issue itself, that Linux default behavior makes no sense here. I mean, the system time is also shown in BIOS if you enter it when booting, and that should be the correct, local time, not UTC.

I wonder if it has to do with that stupid Windows Fast Shutdown quirk, where it basically hibernates instead of actually turning off.

I always turn that off on all my Windows PCs, and I think dualboot wouldn't work if it is enabled (ie, I wouldn't be able to boot to Linux).

That sounds plausible. I have to look into that more, or keep syncing time manually in Windows whenever I boot into it from Linux.

Frankly I've been thinking of erasing Linux from this laptop and freeing that 1TB to be used with Windows as the D: drive, as I have several other Linux PCs that I use too. But this is the only Linux PC I have capable of running modern games, so if I want to learn more about running modern Windows games on Linux... I dunno, have to think about it.

Two years ago, I had the same problem, but selected "option 2". I.e. I forced Windows (7) to respect the UTC system clock. No problems so far. I have no clue what "hard-to-track bugs" the article refers to. *shrug*

 
 
My reasoning to use a UTC system clock ("option 2", as above) is data exchange. Even today, date and time information is often only stored as a simple numerical values without timezone information. If you receive files / data sets from somewhere, it is easier to assume UTC than guess any of the many different time zones + varying daylight saving policies around the globe. UTC is always the same for everyone, all around the year. In my opinion, it's not a big deal if the BIOS shows a "wrong" (= non-local) time during the short period the computer needs to boot up.

 
 
Pfff. Real Linux users don't need distros. Instead, they build everything from source themselves.

I thought really hardcore Linux users have already moved to FreeBSD (no I don't mean Mac OS X either). I tried it once for shits and giggles, and damn it felt like back when I first tried Linux instead of Windows on a PC... I felt brave and timid at the same time, go figure.

I think you are being sarcastic but just in case, BSD is not Linux :)

I hope we are getting to the point where we can say:

"Real Linux users just use the operating system and don't feel the need to tell everyone about it at the slightest opportunity."

Almost there, maybe?

Yeah I know. I was suggesting it is the next level after Linux in hardcoreness, or sumthing.

Then again I have no idea if Free or OpenBSD offers anything over Linux, at least at home or desktop. It just feels even more hardcore, even if there many of the commands and tools feel quite similar to Linux. Jumping from Linux to BSD, or vice versa, is much smaller than from Windows to either one.

I guess I originally got a bit interested into FreeBSD due to ZFS. I wonder if ZFS would be a good filesystem for my GOG installers, keeping them safe from bitrot from here to eternity?

You could use Fedora too. It comes with BTRFS which also has the "copy-on-write" feature.

I've been dabbling with btrfs a bit in Linux for that reason, so yeah I guess it would be either that or OpenZFS. IIRC OpenZFS can be used in Linux too, even if it can't be included in the kernel as the license in incompatible with GPL, or something like that... At work I've used ZFS a bit too.

Maybe the main impediment so far has been that I'd like the filesystem to be at least readable, but preferably also writable, also on Windows. There's e.g. WinBTRFS but I am unsure what is its state at the moment. Currently I use NTFS because I can easily and securely read and write it both in Linux and Windows.

IIRC Windows has also gotten some COW filesystem, but apparently reserved for Windows Server, not home use?

The thing is, I am not really interesting in e.g. data dedup or different RAID-levels and whatnot in e.g. btrfs or ZFS; I'd just want their ability to track the files against e.g. bitrot. So maybe btrfs or OpenZFS are an overkill to me if I am interested in them for one feature only, but then as journaling filesystems like NTFS or ext4 or xfs don't seem to offer the same...

EDIT: Correction, I might be a bit interested in the RAID capability, if it easily lets me combine several smaller hard drives into a bigger pool. Not sure, I'd have to test and think how usable it would be for me.

I am not sure about RAID but you can use LVM to the same effect.

https://opensource.com/article/18/11/manage-storage-lvm

It won't be accessible on Windows, though, since you would need to use Ext4. However, it might be possible with WSL.

Good point, I use LVM a lot at my work, adding hard drive space to clients' servers on the fly.
But then it still misses the data integrity part I guess...

I recall that at least in btrfs, and probably OpenFS, you can add hard drives/partitions of different sizes to the same pool (just like you can with LVM), unlike in "hardware RAID"? But then I also wonder if such a setup is prone to total failure in case one of the hard drives in the pool fails, ie. then you lose all the data in that storage (unless you really have a RAID setup where there are redundant hard drives in the setup as well, ie. you must have much more hard drive capacity than you actually use)?

So in that sense it is still more secure to just divide your library of files to different hard drives manually? If you lose one of the hard drives, then you lose only the files which were in that hard drive (unless you have a backup of them, of course).

All options have some drawbacks it seems...

The DataHoarder reddit has a lot of information about ZFS/BTRFS/Raid if anyone is interested in that and hasn't already seen that.

Especially the wiki has a lot of community knowledge:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/

Thanks, that actually has interesting information gathered into one.

I e.g. started reading about "UnRAID" and I got interested in how you could include any size of hard drives to the storage pool, and the only demand is that the parity drive(s) must be either the largest drive, or the same size as the largest data drive. I just wonder, does that work the same even if you add e.g. USB hard drives to the pool? Does it care what physical interface the hard drives in the pool use?

I guess in that kind of setup you wouldn't really need a secondary backup because if any of the hard drives, of any size, gets broken, you can replace it with another that is either the same size or bigger as the one you are replacing? Then the data can be rebuilt again.

My original idea was that I just have two identical hard drives or pools, both containing the same data/files. Then if I e.g. notice some file on either one has become corrupted (e.g. btrfs or ZFS notices it), I manually copy the file from the backup drive over the corrupted one, and I'm good again. Of course it is theoretically possible that the same file happens to become corrupted on both about the same time, but I consider that very unlikely.

I guess having a parity drive achieves mostly the same, combined with (automatic) anti-corruption.

I am looking at going over to Linux as well and hope all the Proton calls can slowly but surely move as much Windows games over to Linux. That is if Proton is necessary.

I would like to see as many Japanese games as possible to move over there too.

Here is hoping GOG slowly but surely moves as many games over to Linux as possible as many will be leaving Windows after the horror that is Recall.
Looking more at Pop-OS, maybe Arch and some other GUI's. Besides games I want to use programs like ProTools and others. I know DaVinci Resolve is built on Linux.