Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:19:56 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD handles leapsecond correctly Message-ID: <20060102211956.GA10928@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <80432.1136235223@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <m3psnagxrb.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <80432.1136235223@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <m3psnagxrb.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>, Matthias Andree writes: > > >And tell me one reason why the leap second must be discontinued while > >the leap day (Feb 29th) can be carried on. It's the same story, > >irregular rollover, inserting one particular unit of time. > > You are clearly not thinking rationally here. > > I know already now that year 2048 will be a leap year, but I still > don't know if there will be a leap second on june 30th 2006. And you can predict the DST rules for all major countries for 2048? Who says the EU won't discontinue DST effective 2008? We don't know yet. You suggest UTC needs to be used because civil time matters, yet at the same time UTC were broken, and thus POSIX were broken, but could not be blamed for picking UTC. Leap days (called leap year, to compensate for earth orbiting the sun), leap hours (called daylight savings time, completely artificial); aren't questioned, but leap seconds are. Is it just me who sees inconsistencies in your argumentation here? No offense, but I simply don't get your point. Another question: Did you mean to write "FreeBSD handles leapsecond in POSIX compliance" for the subject? -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060102211956.GA10928>