In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes : >No, you didn't. What you and Warner HAVE demonstrated is that you >_chose_ the wrong time coordinate system for your systems/applications.
This made me laugh... Ohh, how I wish I were in a position to tell POSIX: "Sorry, the time_t definition is wrong (and useless), fix it now please!". Heck, I would even love get the Danish parliament to fix the law from 18mumble so it doesn't define legal time as "the mean solar time of the observatory in Copenhagen". But Mike, I live in the real world. Out here in the real world people with little grasp of fine details write specifications for turn-key systems which they belive will solve all their problems. The systems must use common-off-the-Shelf components for vendor independence, follow all applicable standards, official, industry and corporate. And be delivered within budget, on-time, fully debugged and documented. And I won't even mention the uniform 3 second upper limit on response time or the requirement to use OS/2, Oracle and VisualBasic, (somebody from the golfclub probably recommended that). When you point out the mistakes and misunderstandings, legal will tell you that the specifications can not be changed "for contractual reasons". If you insist, legal briefs the Mgt and your project leader will receive a memo from them saying merely: "Annex 9 shall happen as written." Two years down the road, the customer will tell you "If only you had told us!" and sales will call it an "opportunity" and thank legal for preventing the programmers from screwing up our profit yet again. This, Mike, is where the real cost of leapseconds are booked. And you have no idea... -- 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. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
