Re: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes: John Hawkinson replies: I think PHK has demonstrated the ability (and willingness :-) to hold up his own end of an argument. Should we ever find ourselves at the same conference, I'll buy him a beer in anticipation of a rousing discussion. I'll

Re: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Rob Seaman
All right - I guess we can go another round or two while waiting - perhaps indefinitely - for reports of leap second related catastrophes to filter in. First, an apology for posting my previous reply publicly. It escaped my notice that I was replying to a private message. On Jan 3, 2006, at

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Ed Davies
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers that survive longer than that would need to update the factory installed table of leapseconds. Rob Seaman replied: No. Rather all

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers that survive longer than that would need to update the factory installed table of

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers that survive longer than that would

Re: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Neal McBurnett
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers that survive longer than that would need to update the factory installed table of leapseconds.

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Warner Losh
I continue to find the focus on general purpose computing infrastructure to be unpersuasive. If we can convince hardware and software vendors to pay enough attention to timing requirements to implement such a strategy, we can convince them to implement a more complete time handling

Re: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neal McBurnett writes: On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers that survive longer than that would need to

Re: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Steve Allen
On Wed 2006-01-04T07:36:17 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neal McBurnett writes: Do you have any evidence for this assertion? It is an educated guess. The IERS have already indicated that they belive they could do prediction under the 0.9 second tolerance

Re: text book example why Leapseconds are bad

2006-01-03 Thread Peter Bunclark
Perhaps I was a little hard, and I certainly make plenty of typos when dashing off a semi-formal email such as this. When publishing a techical paper, however, in a journal or on the Web, I do try and give it a quick proof (preferably by someone else). Such in your face spelling errors as