Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_PHK.FREEBSD.DK>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:13:09 +0100

In message <>, Rob Seaman writes:
>On Jan 8, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> As I understood it, it was mainly that TAI is a post-factum
>> "postal" timescale.
>One is left pondering the fact that UTC is now (and would remain
>under any changes I've heard suggested) a time scale based on TAI.
>What magic makes one acceptable and the other not?

I didn't say I thought the protest against more widespread use
made sense, I merely tried to relay it faithfully.

I does sound consistent with previously mentioned old fashionedness.

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 Sun Jan 08 2006 - 08:23:27 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT