In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjorn Gabrielsson writes: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes: >> >>> Programmers cause programming errors. Leap seconds may make them apparent. >>>=20 >>> >Certainly the death (if it occurred) was not an automatic result of the = >>leapsecond, but rather was the result of something that broke because it wa= >>sn't properly programmed to deal with the leapsecond. >>>=20 >>> The counter argument is that removing leapseconds will break properly imp= >>lemented systems in unknown ways, the blame will them be not with someone w= >>ho did things in violation of a well documented specification, but with tho= >>se who changed the specification in a fundamentally incompatible way for se= >>lfish reasons. >> >>How does a properly implemented system accounting for leapseconds fail >>when leapseconds fail to come? Sure there will be unnessesary code >>that could be removed. But I do not see why the system would break. > >My interpretation of this is that systems which assume that DUT < 1s >fail, when leap seconds are applied. ^ not
>That's probably true, but since DUT is only relevant if you study >extraterrestial objects, we can safely assume that 99.9% or more >of those systems involve astronomers and optics. > >-- >Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 >FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe >Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > >_______________________________________________ >time-nuts mailing list >time-nuts@febo.com >https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts