On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:26:22AM -0700, Roy wrote:
> Remember OpenTime is only for people who want their system clocks to
> ignore leap seconds. I don't include myself among the possible users of
> OpenTime.
Obviously you need a machine time, which is monotonous, high-resolution
(you don't
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 01:07:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> This is a local/states rights issue imho :) AZ ignores DST and as a result
> I never know what time it is there ;)
AZ actually tried DST for a year, and then came to a couple of
conclusions:
1) The state with the high
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Roy wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 10:42 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu 2012-07-05T10:26:22 -0700, Roy hath writ:
>>>
>>> Lets see. There have been nine leap seconds in 20 years. So at the
>>> start of the next century the difference will probably be less than a
>>> mi
On 7/5/2012 10:42 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Thu 2012-07-05T10:26:22 -0700, Roy hath writ:
Lets see. There have been nine leap seconds in 20 years. So at the
start of the next century the difference will probably be less than a minute
There is no predicting how large the decadal variations in
On Jul 5, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> And, by the way, the deformations and exchanges of angular momentum
> that drive Earth rotation variations are probably the best understood
> global geophysical processes there are. Absolutely no magic is
> required.
Not the tectonic o
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:33:05AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm only at (aproxamately) 42.28755874876601 north. Once you go near 60
>>> north the value changes significantly.
>>>
>>> There is a band of latitudes where it does mak
On Thu 2012-07-05T10:26:22 -0700, Roy hath writ:
> Lets see. There have been nine leap seconds in 20 years. So at the
> start of the next century the difference will probably be less than a minute
There is no predicting how large the decadal variations in LOD will be,
but the difference should b
On 7/5/2012 5:54 PM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Rather than discussing the pros and cons of UTC and leap seconds, just
create your own time system.
You could call it OpenTime. OpenTime will use NTP servers where the
Stratum 1 servers are synced to some time standard that doesn't care
about leap seco
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 17:22 UTC, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>> The NTP daemon could still provide a configuration option to not
>> implement leap-seconds locally, or ignore the leap-second
>> announcement received. So the admin can make a tradeo
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:33:05AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I'm only at (aproxamately) 42.28755874876601 north. Once you go near 60
> > north the value changes significantly.
> >
> > There is a band of latitudes where it does make more sense.
>
> Why punish the rest of us to acco
>>
>
> I'm only at (aproxamately) 42.28755874876601 north. Once you go near 60 north
> the value changes significantly.
>
> There is a band of latitudes where it does make more sense.
Why punish the rest of us to accommodate a few people who live between about
50º and 55º latitude?
Owen
> Rather than discussing the pros and cons of UTC and leap seconds, just
> create your own time system.
>
> You could call it OpenTime. OpenTime will use NTP servers where the
> Stratum 1 servers are synced to some time standard that doesn't care
> about leap seconds. That way the consumer ca
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:33:35PM -0400, Tyler Haske wrote:
> >> 4 years. These things are supposed to be synced to a NTP source
> >> anyway.
> >>
> >> Easiest solution is just remove leap second functionality from
> >> mainline code, a
Most systems that deals with time has a slightly different way of
doing it than U*ix.. ref: CCIR 457-1
Like this:
56113.6294791667
56113.6301736111
56113 is MJD, modified julian date (http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/mjd.html)
Want to knew the time between two observations, just subtract and you
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:49 48AM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
>>> On one of my BSD boxes. /usr/src/share/zoneinfo/leapseconds, I see no
>>> "-"
>> No, but they're allowed; see Figure 9 of RFC 5905:
>
> Steve,
>
> I commented that it was stated that we where doing both positive and
> negative correction
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
>> > Leap seconds are to align the artificial and very stable atomic timescale
>> > with the irregular and slowing rotation of the earth.
>>
>> You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely irregular w=
>> ithin the capabiliti
> > Leap seconds are to align the artificial and very stable atomic timescale
> > with the irregular and slowing rotation of the earth.
>
> You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely irregular w=
> ithin the capabilities of our scheme of measurement, calculation, and obser=
>
> > On one of my BSD boxes. /usr/src/share/zoneinfo/leapseconds, I see no
> > "-"
> No, but they're allowed; see Figure 9 of RFC 5905:
Steve,
I commented that it was stated that we where doing both positive and
negative corrections. Only positive corrections have been made, and
yes, negative are
> If you want to run a Google-patched NTP server and talk to it, you're welcome
> to. The rest of us would prefer to just get it right, so we don't have to
> get lied to.
The timescale implementation in NTP is correct accoring to how UTC is
defined. I suggest leaving it alone, chances of improv
"I'm only at (aproxamately) 42.28755874876601 north. Once you go near 60 north the
value changes significantly."
"There is a band of latitudes where it does make more sense."
It sure isn't Indiana.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/03/13/205642/daylight-saving-time-energy-dst/?mobile=nc
On Jul 5, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Henning Stener wrote:
> On 05/07/12 13:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 05/07/2012 11:34, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> Live further north and you will see the difference dst makes.
>>
>> This is true. Ireland, UK, NL, Denmark, northern Germany and northern
>> Poland are at
On 05/07/12 13:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 05/07/2012 11:34, Jared Mauch wrote:
Live further north and you will see the difference dst makes.
This is true. Ireland, UK, NL, Denmark, northern Germany and northern
Poland are at a similar latitude to Polar Bear Provincial Park by Hudson
Bay. Wi
On 05/07/2012 11:34, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Live further north and you will see the difference dst makes.
This is true. Ireland, UK, NL, Denmark, northern Germany and northern
Poland are at a similar latitude to Polar Bear Provincial Park by Hudson
Bay. With DST, we get much more usable evenings M
Live further north and you will see the difference dst makes.
On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
> I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly.
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 06:10:45PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> IMO, leap seconds are a really bad idea. Let the vanishingly few
> people who care about a precision match against the solar day keep
> track of the deviation from clock time and let everybody else have a
> *simple* clock year after
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:00 +0400, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
> >> I doubt that either of those proposals is li
On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
>> I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly.
>
> Russian govt. did eliminate DST.
>
> http://www.
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
> I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly.
Russian govt. did eliminate DST.
http://www.rt.com/news/daylight-saving-time-abolished/
--vadim
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120629142607.htm
From: Paul WALL
To: NANOG list
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 6:16 PM
Subject: F-ckin Leap Seconds, how do they work?
Comments?
Drive Slow
Paul
On 7/4/12 8:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly. Owen
Before we had timezones your clock offset was forward or backward 4
minutes every-time you crossed a meridian.
On 7/4/2012 10:06 PM, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
On 7/5/2012 12:47 AM, Roy wrote:
Rather than discussing the pros and cons of UTC and leap seconds,
just create your own time system.
You could call it OpenTime. OpenTime will use NTP servers where the
Stratum 1 servers are synced to some time s
On 7/5/2012 12:47 AM, Roy wrote:
Rather than discussing the pros and cons of UTC and leap seconds, just
create your own time system.
You could call it OpenTime. OpenTime will use NTP servers where the
Stratum 1 servers are synced to some time standard that doesn't care
about leap seconds. T
Rather than discussing the pros and cons of UTC and leap seconds, just
create your own time system.
You could call it OpenTime. OpenTime will use NTP servers where the
Stratum 1 servers are synced to some time standard that doesn't care
about leap seconds. That way the consumer can chose to
On Jul 4, 2012, at 8:39 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 7/4/12, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> IMO, leap seconds are a really bad idea. Let the vanishingly few
>> people who care about a precision match against the solar day keep
>> track of the deviation from clock time and let everybody else have a
>>
On 7/4/12, William Herrin wrote:
> IMO, leap seconds are a really bad idea. Let the vanishingly few
> people who care about a precision match against the solar day keep
> track of the deviation from clock time and let everybody else have a
> *simple* clock year after year. When the deviation incr
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:01:50 -0500, Brett Frankenberger said:
> No. Leap Years arise because the solar year is not an integral
> multiple of the solar day.
And leap seconds arise because the astronomical day is not
an integral multiple of the hour, minute, or second. Same problem.
> still hold.
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 05:02:02PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:44:40 -0500, Brett Frankenberger said:
>
> > Leap Seconds and Leap Years are completely unrelated and solve two
> > completely different problems.
> >
> > Leap Seconds exist to adjust time to match th
On Jul 4, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> Yeah but what you don't understand is that manual navigation after a
> certain point of difference becomes inaccurate to a degree that is
> unacceptable by most military standards.
Manual navigation (sextant, etc) is dead. It's not taugh
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 06:10:45PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Brett Frankenberger
> wrote:
> > Without leap seconds, the sun stops being overhead at noon.
>
> But that's ridiculous. The sun *isn't* overhead at noon except at one
> particular longitude within
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> Without leap seconds, the sun stops being overhead at noon.
But that's ridiculous. The sun *isn't* overhead at noon except at one
particular longitude within each time zone. Everywhere else time synch
to local noon is +/- half an hour.
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:44:40 -0500, Brett Frankenberger said:
> Leap Seconds and Leap Years are completely unrelated and solve two
> completely different problems.
>
> Leap Seconds exist to adjust time to match the Earth's actual rotation.
> They exist because the solar day is not exactly 24 hours
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:54:24PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:49:40, Peter Lothberg said:
>
> > Leapseconds can be both positive and negative, but up to now, the
> > earth has only slowed down, so we have added seconds.
>
> That's what many people believe, but
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> The NTP daemon could still provide a configuration option to not
> implement leap-seconds locally, or ignore the leap-second
> announcement received. So the admin can make a tradeoff favoring
> Stability over Correctness, of _allowing_ th
On 2012 Jul 4, at 08:50, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> So accept the inaccuracy and correct the clock in the normal way that
> NTP corrects clocks that have drifted.
This is basically the "leap smear" that google instituted after
the issues in 2005. It works nicely in cloud applications where
real-time is
On 7/4/12, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
[snip]
> Local clocks have to be consulted much too frequently (logging,
> timestamping, etc) for "just put it in the cloud" to work.
> You might want to read up on NTP (wikipedia provides a reasonable
> introduction).
The NTP daemon could still provide a conf
Tyler Haske writes:
> Someone running an NTP Server connected to a cesium clock could run
> the leap-second time code. Since its *their job* to have the correct
> time, they can do all the fancy rarely used things that make parts of
> the Internet die every couple of years.
Ah, Tyler, I see the
On (2012-07-03 16:53 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sure, but even with that, 99% of it has only a passing 'interesting' effect
> and
> then recovers.
Inclusive you no longer know order of events based on your logs, and
virtually none of your software are logging 60th second.
What are only interes
On 2012 Jul 3, at 21:29, Paul Graydon wrote:
> http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat
Which is simply reiterating an older version of the regulatory
document that specifies how UTC shall be done
http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-TF.460/en
On paper it is a scheme that will work for 1000 year
On 7/3/2012 1:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
UTC (and the system clock) should not move backwards, but, rather they repeat
second 59. UTC goes 58->59->00 most of the time, but during a leap second, it
should go 58->59->59->00). It's not so much going backwards as dropping a chime.
If they do that, t
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:53:32PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> UTC (and the system clock) should not move backwards, but, rather they repeat
> second 59. UTC goes 58->59->00 most of the time, but during a leap second, it
> should go 58->59->59->00). It's not so much going backwards as dropping a
>
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:33:35PM -0400, Tyler Haske wrote:
>> 4 years. These things are supposed to be synced to a NTP source
>> anyway.
>>
>> Easiest solution is just remove leap second functionality from
>> mainline code, and make it som
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:33:35PM -0400, Tyler Haske wrote:
> 4 years. These things are supposed to be synced to a NTP source
> anyway.
>
> Easiest solution is just remove leap second functionality from
> mainline code, and make it something you have to special-compile for.
Please reconc
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:15 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
>
> It's not a butthead thing to do to assert that the Internet's
> stability in this matter now outweighs an arbitrary and abstract
> argument among timekeepers. We matter more than they do, now. If
> they want to keep a more true Solar Tim
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Most people operate on the assumption that there are 86400*365.25 seconds per
> year overall and that every day is 86,400 seconds. UTC matches that common
> conception of time. UT1 does not because UT1 monotonically increments one
> sec
No, it really shouldn't.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-07-03 12:46 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If you don't know that time is not monotonically increasing, then that only
On 7/3/12, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> There's always a possibility of using pseudo-TAI internally by
> reconstructing it from UTC. This is not the best solution (because it
> requires systems to have long-term memory of past leap seconds, or
How about, instead of requiring systems to "remember" past
came for the meme, stayed for the epic rant on time.
thanks for making my holiday start awesome.
-chris
On 7/3/2012 6:28 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On 2012 Jul 3, at 18:13, Vadim Antonov wrote:
PS. I would vote for using TAI instead of UTC as the
non-relativistic time base in computer systems.
A problem with the use of TAI is that the BIPM and CCTF (who make
TAI) expressed strongly that they do not
On 2012 Jul 3, at 18:13, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> PS. I would vote for using TAI instead of UTC as the
> non-relativistic time base in computer systems.
A problem with the use of TAI is that the BIPM and CCTF (who make
TAI) expressed strongly that they do not want it used as a system
time in documen
On 7/3/2012 4:15 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Vadim Antonov wrote:
But in theory, if you can get the technical wrinkles worked out, you can
derive the same frequency standard in your lab with a single instrument.
(One more issue is that non-relativistic time is not only the frequency of
oscillators,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Leap seconds are to align the artificial and very stable atomic timescale
> with the irregular and slowing rotation of the earth.
>
What do you want to use for a clock? It is convenient (if provincial) for
me to use the sky as the ultimate cloc
On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:54 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:49:40, Peter Lothberg said:
>
>> Leapseconds can be both positive and negative, but up to now, the
>> earth has only slowed down, so we have added seconds.
>
> That's what many people believe, but it's not exact
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> UTC (and the system clock) should not move backwards, but, rather they repeat
> second 59. UTC goes 58->59->00 most of the time, but during a leap second, it
> should go 58->59->59->00). It's not so much going backwards as dropping a
> chime.
That would be t
Tony Finch dot at dotat.at wrote
> No that is not correct, or at least it's nowhere near as simple as that.
> The atomic second was matched to the second of ephemeris time, and that
> was based on Newcomb's tables of the sun, which in effect used the average
> length of the second from the 1800s.
>
On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-07-03 12:46 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If you don't know that time is not monotonically increasing, then that only
>> becomes a software bug when you codify your own ignorance into software you
>> write.
>
> If only all software cou
On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>>> The system clock needs to be UTC, not UTC ± some offset stuck
>>> somewhere that keeps some form of running tally of the current leap
>>> second offset since the epoch.
>
>> Nope. UTC *includes* leap seconds already. It's UT1 that does no
Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
> But in theory, if you can get the technical wrinkles worked out, you can
> derive the same frequency standard in your lab with a single instrument.
>
> (One more issue is that non-relativistic time is not only the frequency of
> oscillators, but also a reference point).
Y
Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> What you mean is that it is subject to periodicities and forces which
> you do not understand, and that within your limited perception, this
> ignorance is taken as "irregularity". Just because the system
> encompasses rules and properties beyond your understanding and
>
On 7/3/2012 2:35 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Peter Lothberg wrote:
As the definition of a atomic second is 9192631770 complete
oscillations of cesium 133 between enery level 3 and 4, "everyone" can
make a second in their lab, that's TAI.
No, TAI isn't based on the SI second you realise in your lab
Tony Finch wrote:
> Keith Medcalf wrote:
> > You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely
> > irregular within the capabilities of our scheme of measurement,
> > calculation, and observation.
> There is LOTS of evidence that the earth's rotation is irregular. VLBI,
> laser r
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:33:22PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Keith Medcalf wrote:
> >
> > You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely
> > irregular within the capabilities of our scheme of measurement,
> > calculation, and observation.
>
> There is LOTS of evidence that the e
Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely
> irregular within the capabilities of our scheme of measurement,
> calculation, and observation.
There is LOTS of evidence that the earth's rotation is irregular. VLBI,
laser ranging of the moon, etc. This w
> Leap seconds are to align the artificial and very stable atomic timescale
> with the irregular and slowing rotation of the earth.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. The rotation is merely irregular
within the capabilities of our scheme of measurement, calculation, and
observation. Once
On Jul 3, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
>
>
> On one of my BSD boxes. /usr/src/share/zoneinfo/leapseconds, I see no
> "-"
No, but they're allowed; see Figure 9 of RFC 5905:
LI Leap Indicator (leap): 2-bit integer warning of an impending leap
second to be inserted or deleted i
Peter Lothberg wrote:
> And I forgot: They made a "mistake" and missed their intentions of a
> solar day year 1900 when defining the atomic second. Off by 2s in 100
> years.
No that is not correct, or at least it's nowhere near as simple as that.
The atomic second was matched to the second of ep
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> Leap seconds are added for the exact same reason leap days are - the
> earth's rotation isn't a clean multiple of the year.
No leap seconds have nothing to do with years.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Rockall: Cyclonic, becoming northerly late
Peter Lothberg wrote:
>
> As the definition of a atomic second is 9192631770 complete
> oscillations of cesium 133 between enery level 3 and 4, "everyone" can
> make a second in their lab, that's TAI.
No, TAI isn't based on the SI second you realise in your lab. It's the SI
second realised on the
Peter Lothberg wrote:
>
> We have a NTP server on Earth (say Washington-DC) and Vint has
> extended the Internet to planet Mars, can we use NTP?
No. http://fanf.livejournal.com/116480.html
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Rockall: Cyclonic, becoming northerly later, 4 or 5, occasi
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Since we have a tradition of measuring diurnal and other repetitive
> cycles (days) based on the rotation of the earth, we end up with fudge
> factors to make that line up with months from time to time. (leap
> seconds).
That is not what leap seconds are.
Leap seconds are
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell"
> I'd even take off by a second but didn't crash, over crashed.
You would, but lots of people would not, and that's not the contract made
by the API definition.
If you want to run a Google-patched NTP server and talk to it, you're welcome
to.
UTC and time is defined as part of the SI system and ITU etc, so we
just need to implement the time system correct. If you try to invent
your own way, there are surprises we don;t need to re-explore..
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:49:40, Peter Lothberg said:
>
> > Leapseconds can be both positive and
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:49:40, Peter Lothberg said:
> Leapseconds can be both positive and negative, but up to now, the
> earth has only slowed down, so we have added seconds.
That's what many people believe, but it's not exactly right. Leap seconds
are added for the exact same reason leap days a
In a message written on Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:47:52PM +0200, Eugen Leitl
wrote:
> Notice that in inertial frame dragging context it's provably
> impossible to synchronize oscillators. Luckily, Earth has
> negligible frame dragging, for the kind of accuracy we
> currently need.
I think everyone
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:49:40PM +0200, Peter Lothberg wrote:
> I leave the computer kernels out of this for a second..:-)
>
> We have a timescale that runs at constant speed forward it's named
> "TAI", it is based on the definition on the atomic second.
Notice that in inertial frame dragging
(source http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html )
Unit of time (second) Abbreviations: CGPM, CIPM, BIPM
The unit of time, the second, was defined originally as the fraction
1/86 400
of the mean solar day. The exact definition of "mean solar day" was left to
astronomical theories.
- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Medcalf"
> > Are you suggesting that NTP timekeeping should be based on UT1?
>
> The system clock should be based on UT1 and should be monotonically
> increasing since this matches the common concept of time. Calculations
> done with this value are all
> UTC doesn't move backwards (it goes 59 -> 60 -> 00)
or
58 -> 00
--P
> > > The system clock needs to be UTC, not UTC =C2=B1 some offset stuck
> > > somewhere that keeps some form of running tally of the current leap
> > > second offset since the epoch.
>
> > Nope. UTC *includes* leap seconds already. It's UT1 that does not.
>
> > Are you suggesting that NTP ti
On (2012-07-03 12:46 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
> If you don't know that time is not monotonically increasing, then that only
> becomes a software bug when you codify your own ignorance into software you
> write.
If only all software could be ordered from you Owen, but in practice this
is not p
> > The system clock needs to be UTC, not UTC ± some offset stuck
> > somewhere that keeps some form of running tally of the current leap
> > second offset since the epoch.
> Nope. UTC *includes* leap seconds already. It's UT1 that does not.
> Are you suggesting that NTP timekeeping should be
And I forgot: They made a "mistake" and missed their intentions of a
solar day year 1900 when defining the atomic second. Off by 2s in 100
years.
-p
On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-07-03 10:11 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Trading one known set of bugs for a (probably) larger set of unknown bugs is
>> not my definition of progress. Cost without progress is harmful and should
>> be avoided.
>
> Leap bugs are NOT
> > Maybe we should stop wrenching the poor system time back and forth. We
> > no longer add or subtract daylight savings time (or timezones) to the
> > kernel time, why do we do it with leapseconds? We should really move
> > the leapseconds correction into the display routines like DST and
> > tim
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Well, yeah, it's not obvious that a minute can have anywhere between 59 and
> 62 seconds.
No a minute cannot have 62 seconds. That is an old documentation bug which
has been fixed.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/time.h.html
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n
- Original Message -
> From: "valdis kletnieks"
> When the published API has been "the system clock is in UTC" for some 3
> decades, I hardly think it's acceptable to call apps "buggy" for assuming that
> the system clock is in fact using UTC and breaking if you switch it to
> something t
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> DST is a time-zone specific phenomenon.
Nobody said *anything* about DST; that's a complete red herring to
discussions of leap seconds.
> Leap seconds are changes to the actual core time. UTC moves with leap
> seconds.
Correct.
> The syste
- Original Message -
> From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht"
> Maybe we should stop wrenching the poor system time back and forth. We
> no longer add or subtract daylight savings time (or timezones) to the
> kernel time, why do we do it with leapseconds? We should really move
> the leapseconds co
d [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 12:33
> To: Saku Ytti
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: F-ckin Leap Seconds, how do they work?
>
> On 03/07/2012 18:59, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > Leap bugs are NOT known. Most people have no idea unixtime is not
> > mo
On (2012-07-03 19:33 +0100), Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Google's approach to this is interesting:
>
> > http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2011/09/time-technology-and-leaping-seconds.html
Yes. I'm sure this is good enough for most people, most people don't need
precise time but virtually everyone needs m
On 03/07/2012 18:59, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Leap bugs are NOT known. Most people have no idea unixtime is not
> monotonically increasing.
> I had no idea myself until sunday, I had assumed we really go 59 -> 60 ->
> 00, but we go 59 -> 59 -> 00. So 59.1 can happen before or after 59.2.
> To me this is
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
