Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 16:33 +1000, Greg Black wrote:
> > > BTW: There's good news for those with a dislike regarding
> > > the change: While testing I'm stuck again, so there will be
> > > some more delay.
> >
> > Previously we were told that this stuff had already been tested
> > for years under another OS and was therefore robust and
> > reliable. Now we learn that these claims are not correct. And
> > you wonder why people are reluctant to even consider these
> > changes ...
>
> "We were told UNIX had been around for some thirty years, is said
> to be functional / reliable / flexible / add whatever you use and
> love UNIX for. And now we learn it doesn't even work easily for
> those simple tasks as networking / printing / gaming / etc are?"
>
> Excuse me, please? Could it be that you got more from my
> messages than what I actually said?
Please read more carefully. I said: "we were told that this
stuff had already been tested for years [...]". I did not say
who made this claim, although I assumed that those few people
who are following this thread would have remembered who it was.
The claim /was/ made. I suggested that it was invalid. I still
think that.
As for the implementation issues that you covered in detail, I
have no comment as I'm not interested in reviewing the code for
a change that I see no case for.
> I understand that having the clock jump is a Bad Idea(TM).
> Especially when it is jumping backward since this violates the
> model we have of time (*always* monotonously increasing [...]
It may be monotonous, but it's supposed to be monotonically
increasing.
> And I realize that the DST topic is anything but trivial, cannot
> be handled by my ported patch and actions can easily do harm when
> done incorrectly. The only solutions turn out to be
> - education [...]
Not such a bad method. We use it for all the "How do I remove a
file named -x?" questions -- we don't "fix" rm or the way the
shells parse commands.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
