Re: [LEAPSECS] Schreiver AFB warns about leapsec

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:06:20 +0100

In message <>, Francois Meyer writes:
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0512202014130.31375-100000_at_jupiter.obs-besanc=
>>, Francois Meyer writes
>> :
>> >I second this too, 23:59:59 is the worst time to
>> >insert a leap second, since failing to implement it
>> >leaves you with the wrong day (month and possibly
>> >year) at the very second it occurs.
>> That is probably one of the strongest arguments for retaining that
>> moment of insertion: That way computer bugs are more likely to
>> be noticed.
>UTC is not a debugging tool, it is an international
>standard. Software is an an issue but I think it
>cannot justify in itself that leap second impact
>should be as large as possible.

It must be wonderful to live in a world where software can just be
ignored or marginalized at whim, I really envy you.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wed Dec 21 2005 - 02:17:14 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:54 PDT