In message <20070106205044.GA25265_at_ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>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:
Yes, this is perfectly fair, this is all the problems there are.
And furthermore, the two plans I outlined represent the only
two kinds of plans there are for solving this.
They can be varied for various sundry and unsundry purposes, such
as the "leap-hour" fig-leaf and similar, but there are only
two classes of solutions.
>No two clocks can ever stay in agreement.
This is not relevant. It's not a matter of clock precision or
clock stability. It's only a matter of how they count.
>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.
Now, it can be equally argued, that leap seconds implement a state
of denial with respect to a particular lump of rocks ability as
timekeeper, so I suggest we keep that part of the discussion closed
for now.
--
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 Sat Jan 06 2007 - 13:31:11 PST