On 2014-10-01 12:18 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Tony Finch <[email protected]> wrote:
Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> wrote:
I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
For most purposes we need civil time, and a TAI clock doesn't solve the
problem that civil time is too difficult to get right.
The "just use a different timescale" argument never will have much traction
until the primary timescale is implemented correctly, robustly and universally.
UTC isn't today.
Yes.
All the many timescales, NTC, POSIX, GPS, 1588, (with the notable
exception of GLOSNAS) have tried to, or wound up, side-stepping what is
somehow perceived as the difficulties of implementing UTC. Its true that
the UTC specifications are "fractured" (several standards bodies and
documents). Apparently, the standards are so difficult to decipher
everyone seems to give up and invent yet another timescale. In many
discussions I've encountered misunderstandings, some subtle, some not so
subtle. As a start, consolidating and clarifying it as an authoritative
"engineering guideline" from some source would be very helpful.
-Brooks
Warner
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
