On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:14:33 -0800, Brooks Harris wrote:
> On 2014-01-19 08:26 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 18/01/14 11:56, Pou
On 2014-01-19 08:26 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus
On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
> On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>
On Sat 2014-01-18T22:03:03 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> "Broken-down POSIX time" is a YY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss representation - a
> *calendar* date-time.
>
> POSIX behaves as an *uncompensated-for-Leap-Seconds* Gregorian
> calendar counting scheme.
A calendar, made up of days, which because of the l
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should
On 18 Jan 2014 at 8:15, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> Universal Pictures never meant to say that they where making movies for
> other solar systems. Look at the earth they are using as symbol:
> http://www.universalpictures.com/
Did 20th Century Fox intend on making movies into the 21st century?
-
On 2014-01-18 02:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
There are ways to alter the definition of UTC and keeping within the
concept.
If you want a different concept, then it's a different time-scale. The
concept they are looking for already have an existing time-scale, but
naturally they are free
In message <20140118161657.ga1...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>The ITU-R's only options are:
>UTC with leap seconds (status quo)
>and
>a new time scale which is continuous in value to the current
>UTC at the instant of change from old to new (no leap at
>the transition)
Says
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>>
>>> If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>>> should not attempt to be using concep
On Jan 18, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
>> On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>>> On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>
> Let's face it, this lump of orbital debri
On Sat 2014-01-18T07:18:01 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> > Will the delegates from other nations
> > simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the
> > military needs of the USA?
>
> What's the basis of this assertion?
The admonition from USNO to its folks attendin
In message <52da9966.6010...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>In the rationale there is a discussion of leap seconds, including the
>charming statement:
>
>"...most systems are probably not synchronized to any standard time
>reference. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require that a tim
On 2014-01-18 10:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>
>>> As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
>>
>> Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
>> epoch then the nature of the
On 01/18/2014 09:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
No, in fact it doesn't, it just counts seconds, one after the other.
The reason why leapseconds is a problem is that people assume that
it *also* counts minutes, hours and days also.
Others would say that "the reason" there is a a problem is
th
In message <52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>> As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
>
>Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
>epoch then the nature of the "leap second problem" would be quite
>different. time_t
On 2014-01-18 06:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>
>> If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>> should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
>> days, weeks, months,
In message <52da8247.70...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>but about what "Universal" in UTC actually means.
What it *meant*.
That may not be the same thing people mean these days, when they
plunk down robots on different pieces of orbital debris.
Remember: Standards should be
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years [...]
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
>days, weeks, months, years [...]
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t
On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have com
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "unive
On 18 Jan 2014, at 07:18, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>
> Removing future leap seconds won't change the legal definition of the word
> "day" anywhere. What it does mean is that, in countries using "UTC" as part
> of the legal definition, the centre of the night will drift away from 00:00
> before
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "universe".
The "universe" is a little larger than t
On 16/01/14 12:38, Tom Van Baak wrote:
The Multics clock design (a fixed bin (71), ie double word, representing
microseconds
since 00:00 01-01-1900) clearly informs the Unix one.
Was it 1900 or 1901? See:
http://www.multicians.org/jhs-clock.html
http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multic
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "universe".
The "universe" is a little larger than that for the astronomers. "Earth
time"
Steve Allen said:
>>> What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
>>> leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun"
>>> up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they
>>> see fit.
>>
>> Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the on
On 14/01/14 17:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <0ccafa25-523e-4022-a993-4bc2d9fe5...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
A timescale that omits that connection should not be denoted
Universal Time of any kind, coordinated or not.
I would argue that any timescale called "universal something"
On 14/01/14 16:37, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
In 1980 November the CCITT accepted UTC "as the time scale for all
other telecommunications activities". In 2007 the BIPM contributed
document 7A/51-E to the ITU-R WP7A meeting regarding Question ITU-R
236/7
[mailto:leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of Steve Allen
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:52 AM
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] presentations from AAS Future of Time sessions
On Thu 2014-01-16T01:33:53 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
> What is a typical example of
In message <20140117075158.ga2...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>In practice the birth team has far more important things to do than
>watch the clock.
When my son was born at Mt. Diablo Hospital in California, I asked
the staff how they dealt with midnight, DST changes and all that.
They to
On Thu 2014-01-16T01:33:53 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
> What is a typical example of the legal definition of a day? Would
> that definition be affected if DUT1 were allowed to grow to 2 s or 10
> s or 60 s instead of 0.9 s?
In the United States one legal definition with significant financial
On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:03, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> I think the answer for 1970-1990 is that most of them were aligned to local
> time (even if the system ticked in virtual UTC/GMT time) with sub-minute
> accuracy. Time alignment started to matter as more computers were networked
> together to w
On Jan 16, 2014, at 7:23 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , Ian Batten
> wri
> tes:
>
>> It would be interesting to know what proportion of computers
>> 1975--2000 had their clocks aligned to within +/- 22 seconds of
>> anything, such that ignoring leap second was anything other than
>
In message , Ian Batten wri
tes:
>It would be interesting to know what proportion of computers
>1975--2000 had their clocks aligned to within +/- 22 seconds of
>anything, such that ignoring leap second was anything other than
>a second-order effect.
As a first order approximation:
Number of comp
On 16 Jan 2014, at 11:38, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>
> Yes, the Multics clock is very much like the one UNIX adopted. GCOS used a
> more traditional date and time format: 36-bits for date (mmddyy in BCD)
> I want to echo what others have said on this list, that even I of all people,
> did not thin
Tom Van Baak wrote:
>
> When I developed email in 1976 I encoded the BCD date (mmddyy) and BCD
> time (hhmmss) into two 18-bit binary fields. This worked because the
> maximum possible date was 123199, the maximum time was 235959, which
> just fit in the maximum half-word (2^18 = 262144).
That is
> The Multics clock design (a fixed bin (71), ie double word, representing
> microseconds
> since 00:00 01-01-1900) clearly informs the Unix one.
Was it 1900 or 1901? See:
http://www.multicians.org/jhs-clock.html
http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multics/ldd/bos/include/rdclock.incl.alm
h
In message <2747cb51-6467-4a14-92be-229901755...@batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten wri
tes:
>That ship's already sailed. Days are the intervals between successive
>civil time midnights,
...except in Norway and Denmark, and a few other select countries where
our language as a word for "24 hour period" (
On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:33, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>> This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular,
>> can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new
>> version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change
>> the legal definition of the word "
> This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular,
> can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new
> version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change
> the legal definition of the word "day" in every country which has
> adopted UTC as its
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:53, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> It's not like Ken & Dennis looked at leap-seconds and went "Naah,
> who cares", or even "braindead! We'll skip that."
I think it would require slightly more software archaeology to determine who
took what decisions about what. The docume
On Thu 2014-01-16T06:55:00 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> Poul-Henning Kamp said:
> > What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
> > leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun"
> > up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they
> >
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
> What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
> leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun"
> up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they
> see fit.
Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the one that
On Jan 14, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> But the changing-reality-thingie ?
>
> Nope, havn't seen that.
There's no thought to change reality. The thought is to label seconds
differently.
Warner
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leaps
On Jan 14, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> It's not like Ken & Dennis looked at leap-seconds and went "Naah,
> who cares", or even "braindead! We'll skip that.”
Presumably you mean the other Ken & Dennis:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527627952.html
In message <52d5c90c.6050...@cox.net>, Greg Hennessy writes:
>> To everybody else but the scientists who tickled the atomic clocks,
>> leap seconds was an academic detail of no consequence.
>
>Maybe you think the defining feature of UTC is the Coordinated
>part, others think the defining feature i
On 01/14/2014 05:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The defining feature of UTC is the bit they put in the name: Coordinated.
To everybody else but the scientists who tickled the atomic clocks,
leap seconds was an academic detail of no consequence.
Maybe you think the defining feature of UTC is
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
>> On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>> In message <20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org>, Zefram writes:
>>>
It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't awar
In message <20140114150535.ga4...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>These international agencies with multi-letter-acronym names are
>still not listening to each other about the nitty gritty details.
... said the man from UCO/LO(ISB) :-)
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
In message <0ccafa25-523e-4022-a993-4bc2d9fe5...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
> A timescale that omits that connection should not be denoted
> Universal Time of any kind, coordinated or not.
I would argue that any timescale called "universal something" should
not be tied to any particular lump o
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> In message <20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org>, Zefram writes:
>>
>>> It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
>>> leap seconds. As that's the defining feature of
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
> In 1980 November the CCITT accepted UTC "as the time scale for all
> other telecommunications activities". In 2007 the BIPM contributed
> document 7A/51-E to the ITU-R WP7A meeting regarding Question ITU-R
> 236/7 saying please don't use TAI, we m
On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org>, Zefram writes:
>
>> It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
>> leap seconds. As that's the defining feature of UTC [...]
>
> No.
>
> The defining feature of UTC is th
On Tue 2014-01-14T10:48:33 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> To everybody else but the scientists who tickled the atomic clocks,
> leap seconds was an academic detail of no consequence.
Right. Most of the world had quartz crystal clocks off by seconds per
month. The ephemerides simply tabula
In message <20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org>, Zefram writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
>...
>>The reason why they didn't cater to leap-seconds ?
>>
>>They hadn't heard about them at the time.
>
>It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware o
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
...
>The reason why they didn't cater to leap-seconds ?
>
>They hadn't heard about them at the time.
It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
leap seconds. As that's the defining feature of UTC (well, nearly,
On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:54 PM, John Hawkinson wrote:
> In other news, the count of the number of times in this thread folks
> have said "Universal Time Coordinated" instead of "Coordinated
> Universal Time" is higher than I would expect. (Coordinated Universal
> Time is the proper expansion of UTC,
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on Mon, 13 Jan 2014
at 16:03:28 + in <86897.1389629...@critter.freebsd.dk>:
> I don't think he told me exactly what representation they used
> before time_t became 32bit*seconds, but prior to that, the wrap-around
> of timestamps was prevented only by the kernel crashe
On 2014-01-13 09:29 AM, Michael Deckers wrote:
On 2014-01-12 03:28, Brooks Harris quoted from RFC 5905:
Then, and very importantly, Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
states the relationship to "First day UNIX" -
+-++-+---+--+
On 2014-01-12 03:28, Brooks Harris quoted from RFC 5905:
Then, and very importantly, Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
states the relationship to "First day UNIX" -
+-++-+---+--+
| Date| MJD| NTP | NTP Timestam
In message <8d282b74-4172-4888-8581-9f197314a...@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh write
s:
>The other PTTI docs I posted show that the Navy (USNO) was ordered to =
>provide technical assistance to the USCG in synchronizing the master =
>clocks at the LORAN stations in 1960.
The LORSTA veterans website (
In message <5036fb31-5cb7-46a6-949e-5534441fe...@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh write
s:
>> The development was concurrent, not sequential. Unix 1st and 2nd edition
>> had a 1971 epoch and 1/60th second resolution. 3rd edition moved the epoch
>> to 1972.
According to Dennis Ritchie what happened was th
On Jan 13, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> So seeing "GMT" in early Unix documents doesn't necessarily mean what
>> you think it means, especially given the first hand accounts of
>> participants on this list who specifically asked the people that
>> originally wr
On Jan 13, 2014, at 2:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , Warner Losh
> write
> s:
>
>> http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a280955.pdf Perhaps these
>> documents will prove useful in working out TAI's origin, but it seems
>> that LORAN-C started in 1958, and so did TAI time's
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> So seeing "GMT" in early Unix documents doesn't necessarily mean what
> you think it means, especially given the first hand accounts of
> participants on this list who specifically asked the people that
> originally wrote it what the intention behind the words was. POSIX
> c
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On 01/12/2014 05:12 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > GMT and UTC were used interchangeably well into the 1990s, especially in
> > publication not subject to peer review of subject experts...
>
> People still use them interchangeably TODAY, however the people doing so are
> incor
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Brooks Harris wrote:
>
>> You are saying that UTC as a term for the adjusted timescale existed as
>> the process of time-keeping in computers began and they intended
>> computers to reflect "civil time" even if the details of exactly how to
>> do
On Jan 12, 2014, at 10:57 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> I have not found any TAI-UT1 data, but it is probably hidden in some
> obscurity considering the labs being involved. Would be a nice find to make.
The BIPM site has this one one of the obscure back-water portions. I have never
found it wi
On Jan 12, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> I don't think the fact that they called it "GMT" at that point tells you
> anything since referring to UTC as "GMT" was pretty common in the US at
> the time. Even the NBS did it. WWV voice announcements referred to the time
> being transmitt
Brooks Harris wrote:
> You are saying that UTC as a term for the adjusted timescale existed as
> the process of time-keeping in computers began and they intended
> computers to reflect "civil time" even if the details of exactly how to
> do that hadn't been worked out. "Modern" UTC, UTC with Leap
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>
> GMT is now (unofficially?) deemed to be UT1.
GMT is the official name for UK civil time during the winter. The law
seems to specify an astronomical definition for GMT, but official time
signals in the UK are synchronized to UTC, and astronomical GMT has not
been maintained
In message , Warner Losh write
s:
>http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a280955.pdf Perhaps these
>documents will prove useful in working out TAI's origin, but it seems
>that LORAN-C started in 1958, and so did TAI time's EPOCH, so there's a
>strong inference to be made at the connection bet
In message <52d38720.4000...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>What CCITT recommendation are you refering to?
>
>It was CCIR that did the broadcasting recommendations that we keep
>refering to.
And that's what I'm talking about.
The reason UTC got put on radio was that it was "one
On 13/01/14 03:49, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52d2f909.9080...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time UNIX was written.
What was "inside" UTC didn't mater to them, UTC was the a
On 12/01/14 11:58, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52d257b6.6090...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
But time_t has always been UTC, because it was meant to be UTC.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Of course - UTC in the historical non-Leap
Second period existed, and they intended time_t
On 12/01/14 09:26, Brooks Harris wrote:
Thanks very much Steve. Great info
On 2014-01-11 10:45 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Sat 2014-01-11T21:43:02 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Any help getting to the bottom of this appreciated.
It's history, and it's confused. Measurement techniques wer
On 12 Jan, 2014, at 15:42 , Greg Hennessy wrote:
> 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 t
In message <52d2f909.9080...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
>> I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
>> and used by telcos for a decade by the time UNIX was written.
>>
>> What was "inside" UTC didn't mater to them, UTC was the accepted
>> international timescale a
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> Well, yes, but I guess it's a bit of hair splitting. The UNIX docs may
> well still say GMT, but I bet what they really use is UTC, as that's
> what's distributed.
Using UTC as a *realisation* of GMT is acceptable only for as long as
UTC remains a *good faith* approximat
On Sun 2014-01-12T11:46:16 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> So it appears the reference to the International Astronomical Union (13th
> General Assembly, Prague, 1967) is where the recommendations from
> BIH come to the statement in
>
> l.A.2. Recommendations of the 5th Session
> of the Consultati
On 01/12/2014 06:12 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Getting true GMT (~UT1) is a bit more work that
would seem necessary for 99.999% of users.
Well, 99.999 percent of users don't want or need
a PL/1 compiler, but I don't think that is a good
reason for saying that they can't have one.
Likewise, while
On 01/12/2014 05:14 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
It sounds like you are rewriting history.
No, he isn't. In the UNIX before POSIX, it was GMT. When the first
POSIX standard was developed, GMT had been deprecated in favor of UTC,
so POSIX changed to UTC.
POSIX changed to calling something witho
On 01/12/2014 05:12 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
GMT and UTC were used interchangeably well into the 1990s, especially in
publication not subject to peer review of subject experts...
People still use them interchangeably TODAY, however the people doing so
are incorrect.
We can't agree on how to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:18:41 GMT, Michael Spacefalcon wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>
>> In the UNIX before POSIX, it was GMT.
>
> Your use of the past tense is incorrect. In non-POSIX UNIX, it (the
> system time definition) *is* GMT, present tense. See my previous
> post.
Well, yes, but I gue
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> In the UNIX before POSIX, it was GMT.
Your use of the past tense is incorrect. In non-POSIX UNIX, it (the
system time definition) *is* GMT, present tense. See my previous
post.
VLR,
SF
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsec
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:42:57 -0500, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> 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 bec
On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> 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 mea
On Jan 12, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52d259db.4000...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
>
>>> I'm not sure if there is a connection, and if there is, which way
>>> it might go, but that is also the (theoretical) time of coincidence
>>> of all LORAN-C chains.
>>>
On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
> I'm not sure if there is a connection either. When did LORAN-C adopt 1958?
I can't answer definitively on when, but can point the way to what I know.
LORAN-C is defined by COMDTINST M16562.4A. Quoting from chapter 2:
"This epoch is from 0 hr,
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 becau
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 invo
On 2014-01-12 11:33 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52d2e6f5.2030...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
I think I understand you. You are saying that UTC as a term for the
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time UN
On 2014-01-12 08:49 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Sun 2014-01-12T00:26:29 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
I had seen refernce to the fact the 1958 origin was retroactively
declared, and this might throw light on why there is a gap in the
TIA/UTC tables between 1958 and 1961. So I was hunting for th
In message <52d2e6f5.2030...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
>I think I understand you. You are saying that UTC as a term for the
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time UNIX was written.
What was "inside" UTC didn't mate
On 2014-01-12 02:58 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52d257b6.6090...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
But time_t has always been UTC, because it was meant to be UTC.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Of course - UTC in the historical non-Leap
Second period existed, and they intended tim
On Sun 2014-01-12T00:26:29 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> I had seen refernce to the fact the 1958 origin was retroactively
> declared, and this might throw light on why there is a gap in the
> TIA/UTC tables between 1958 and 1961. So I was hunting for the
> actual statement in the standards.
T
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:58:40 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52d257b6.6090...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
>
>>> But time_t has always been UTC, because it was meant to be UTC.
>>
>> Oh, I see what you're saying. Of course - UTC in the historical non-Leap
>> Second period exi
On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
> We don't have terms for "UTC before 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z" and "UTC after
> 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z".
See the ISO statement to the ITU regarding the term UTC:
http://futureofutc.org/preprints/files/11_AAS%2013-506_Appendix.pdf
A related
In message <52d259db.4000...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
>> I'm not sure if there is a connection, and if there is, which way
>> it might go, but that is also the (theoretical) time of coincidence
>> of all LORAN-C chains.
>>
>I'm not sure if there is a connection either. When did LORAN-C a
In message <52d257b6.6090...@edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:
>> But time_t has always been UTC, because it was meant to be UTC.
>
>Oh, I see what you're saying. Of course - UTC in the historical non-Leap
>Second period existed, and they intended time_t to reflect it.
Nice try to twist things
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
