On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Rob Seaman wrote:
> > I hope we can all continue this discussion in a more positive manner.
>
> I'm of the opinion that messages on this list (no matter how
> "tricky" :-) are always positive.
I personnally have 1 or 2 counter examples, but mailling lists
have for long greatl
Rob Seaman wrote:
I hope we can all continue this discussion in a more positive manner.
I'm of the opinion that messages on this list (no matter how
"tricky" :-) are always positive. Timekeeping is a fundamental
issue. It would be remarkable if there weren't diverse opinions.
Any negative asp
I hope we can all continue this discussion in a more positive manner.
I'm of the opinion that messages on this list (no matter how
"tricky" :-) are always positive. Timekeeping is a fundamental
issue. It would be remarkable if there weren't diverse opinions.
Any negative aspects of this discus
The way I think exploration in this group should be going is to
seriously examine what engineering steps can be taken to deal with
leap seconds properly. This means looking at changes to Posix and
NTP, new protocols for disseminating leap second information,
new APIs for accessing clock informati
