On 2015-01-16, Chris Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > Once upon a time, Phil W Lee <[email protected]> said: >>For the tiny number of programs which really need UTC (not TAI), it >>would just be a different number, but the only thing I know of which >>really needs UTC rather than TAI would be programs to assist with >>astronomy or astral navigation. > > I think one problem with OS clocks in TAI is that counting it correctly > requires active/on-going maintenance at unknownable intervals for all > systems that use any form of timestamps (including for example anything > that uses network file systems). > > Also, you can't properly represent future timestamps (necessary for some > things) as seconds since an epoch, and that's pretty widely used. By > that I mean that the number of seconds between 2015-06-30 23:59:00 and > 2015-07-01 00:00:00 has changed since last month.
If those are supposed to be UTC times then the number of utc seconds has not changed. The number of TAI seconds has ( and if you counted each second as it occured, it will also be diffeent than if a leapsecond had not been inserted). > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
