Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Martin Burnicki <[email protected]> wrote: > |Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > |> [1] As much as I dislike the leap seconds; smearing is only appropriate > |> if you specifically have chosen it so they␦re not supposed to be in the > |> pool. > | > |Agreed. Smearing in the way it is currently done by some Google servers > |(and ntpd, if configured accordingly) is just a hack to workaround > |problems with applications that are unable to account for leap seconds > |correctly, and should only be used in closed environments. > > So if you do it only in closed environments over that full control > is available then why should you have your clock off by multiple > hours and not slew a single second, for example?
With "closed environments" I didn't mean that accurate time doesn't matter and thus no time reference needs to be available. I rather thought of let's say "closed time distribution", e.g. a company which has its own time server(s) rather than using public servers, so the admin can decide if their server(s) should smear a leap second, and all the PCs and other nodes in the company network can synchronize to a smearing or non-smearing server. > It surely would have been much easier if CLOCK_TAI and the UTC > offset would have been widely distributed and advocated for many > years, and if the most portable standards would offer interfaces > for them. Since the problem as such doesn't seem to leave us, > that is to say. Agreed. Martin _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
