Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus rather than compromise

From: Peter Bunclark <psb_at_AST.CAM.AC.UK>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:14:33 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Leap seconds cost actual companies lots of $$$. I know that I've
> personally put in about 50 hours to leap second issues since July 1,
> and others in my company have put in even more in testing, shipping
> equiptment to the simulator facility, writing simulation software for
> testing all our products that couldn't be shipped to the simulation
> facility, etc. While it is the cost of doing business, implementing
> and conforming to this standard is expensive.
> Warner
Part of the previous traffic in this interminable argument is that hard
figures are lacking for both the implementation of leap seconds and for
their demise.

I would have thought that part of the answer to the difficulty in
implementation and testing would be to use an open-source library of tried
and tested algorithms. I don't quite understand why software engineers
seem to feel the need to write new leap-second handling code every time
they invent a new gadget.

Received on Tue Aug 30 2005 - 08:15:08 PDT

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