From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30 Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:19:28 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hej Poul-Henning, > >> It also means that the attempt to prevent leapseconds before they > >> do more damage failed... > > > >Would the alternative be much better? > > Lets not restart that discussion :-) I kindly asked for your opinion. I know there have been debates on this, but I haven't followed them and whatever solutions I have seen all have downsides that I don't think is an improvement. In the end, I think this might be a bicycle-stand discussion in which there is no real right answer, we just need to select one of them and stick with it for better or worse. I think there is a bigger problem that people have not got used to UTC coordination of system events than the problem of leap-second insertion. When I come to think of it, people can't even write dates in a fashion that you know what they mean (not saying that there is only one format, but when they get mixed...). Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
