[LEAPSECS] Crunching Bulletin B numbers (POSIX time)

Joe Gwinn joegwinn at comcast.net
Sat Feb 19 16:46:03 EST 2011

At 11:30 PM +0200 2/19/11, Paul Sheer wrote:

>On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 11:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn wrote:

>> At 3:59 PM +0000 2/19/11, Ian Batten wrote:

>> >On 19 Feb 2011, at 15:41, Gerard Ashton wrote:

>> >

>> >> On 2/19/2011 10:24 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote, in part:

>> >>> I have not been following the proposal in detail, but a key issue

>> >>>to the POSIX community is that their timescale must be

>> >>>implementable in a totally isolated machine, one having no GPS or

>> >>>internet access.

>> >>>





>this is why leap seconds announced ten years in advanced

>are important: they allow for a stand-alone machine, albeit

>one that only needs to have it's software upgraded once in

>ten years.

This would go a long way to resolving the POSIX objections.

If such an approach is in fact adopted, and I very much doubt that
the Timelords much care about POSIX.

> > >>> There are other requirements as well. This was discussed at

>> >>>length on the Time Nuts reflector, until Tom kicked the thread

>> >>>over to Leap Secs.





>> This was beaten to death on the Time Nuts reflector in the thread

>> "Leap seconds and POSIX" around January 2009.



>what was the summary?

There was none - it degenerated into the usual brawl, then Tom
ejected the combatants.

But the reason to look at the old thread is that I laid out the POSIX
requirements with some precision, and handling of leap seconds was a
big deal.

Joe Gwinn

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list