Re: [LEAPSECS] Introduction of long term scheduling

From: Steve Allen <sla_at_UCOLICK.ORG>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:50:44 -0800

On Sat 2007-01-06T19:36:19 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> There are two problems:
> 1. We get too short notice about leap-seconds.
> 2. POSIX and other standards cannot invent their UTC timescales.

This is not fair, for there is a more fundamental problem:

No two clocks can ever stay in agreement.

And the question that POSIX time_t does not answer is:

What do you want to do about that?

In some applications, especially the one for which it was designed,
there is nothing wrong with POSIX time_t. POSIX is just fine to
describe a clock which is manually reset as necessary to stay within

There are now other applications.
For some of those POSIX cannot do the job -- with or without leap seconds.

Yes, there is a cost of doing time right, and leap seconds are not to
blame for that cost. They are a wake up call from the state of denial.

Steve Allen                 <>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory        Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99858
University of California    Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06014
Santa Cruz, CA 95064     Hgt +250 m
Received on Sat Jan 06 2007 - 12:52:23 PST

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