In message <52d2fe51.40...@cox.net>, Greg Hennessy writes: >On 01/12/2014 02:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes: >> >> >>> Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term "UTC" in >>> that context. >> >> They chose UTC because they meant UTC. >> >> I have this directly from multiple persons who were involved back >> then, including Dennis Ritchie who gave me the full sordid details >> about the early UNIX' requirement of weekly recompiles to update >> the epoch of the timekeeping. > >If they chose UTC because they meant UTC, then why do the >man pages refer not to UTC, but to GMT? > >http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/vol1/man2.bun
Dennis specifically said UTC to me. Not that it makes any difference, GMT and UTC were considered the same thing until all this talk about dropping leapseconds started. -- 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
