In message <e1rnazq-0007fm...@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>, Markus Kuhn writes:
>Will David L. Mills turn out to be the man who killed the leap second, >by widely implementing it in a rather brutal fashion? He writes of his >kernel time-keeping model in RFC 1589: It would be incredibly unfair to blame it on Dave Mills. If you look at his earlier writings, there are plenty of good proposals for how to deal properly with timekeeping in general, and leapseconds in particular. The problem is that nobody in the *nix world paid him any attention. When I wrote the "timecounter" stuff, she said in som many words that it was the first time any *nix kernel had touched its timekeeping code in ten years, and first time in 20 years any of them had improved on it. This is also why he insisted we co-author a paper on the subject (I delivered the data and graphs, he wrote the text :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
