In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.