Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

From: Ashley Yakeley <ashley_at_SEMANTIC.ORG>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:14:11 -0800

On Jan 6, 2007, at 14:43, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> So you think it is appropriate to demand that ever computer with a
> clock should suffer biannual software upgrades if it is not connected
> to a network where it can get NTP or similar service ?

Since that's the consequence of hard-coding a leap-second table,
that's exactly what I'm not proposing. Instead, they should suffer
biannual updates to their leap-second table. Doing this is an
engineering problem, but a known one.

Under your plan B, however, we'd have plenty of software that just
wouldn't get upgraded at all, but would simply fail after ten years.
That strikes me as worse.

> I know people who will disagree with you:

I don't think you're serious.

> 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

Don't forget " | one second off since 2018". :-)

Ashley Yakeley
Received on Sat Jan 06 2007 - 15:15:33 PST

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