On Jun 22, Bruce Perens wrote
> Speaking of predictability, isn't 2000 a leap year? The rule is different
> for the turn of the century.
2000/02/29 exists. (the rule is : every for years, but not every hundred
years, but every 400 years). AFAIK.
regards, andreas
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAIL
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
>
> Now, we know the length of a year/day better, and
> only 1 in for of those turn-of-century years are leap years. Maybe that
> will change again. And about the seconds: we (currently, prossibly always)
> si
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
> Not everyone switched in 1752.
This is Pope Gregory's calendar reform, isn't it? I think it goes back a
century or more before 1752.
> Actually, it probably was a bad idea to use "leap" for both. Leap days are
> fixed by calendar design. Leap seconds a
> > Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
[..]
> A more serious problem is that the current implementation doesn't allow
> for non-Christian date systems, of which there are several in active use.
> I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for
> example.
>
> Does a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can someone explain to me exactly what POSIX time is? I was under the
It's just what you'd expect. Look at the calendar, get the timezone
difference (keeping in mind summertime laws), do the math, and get a
second counter. If a l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Someone wrote:
> > This is completely unacceptable. OS time must be predictable.
>
> Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
Consider it done. And now?
(Besides, isn't that a bug in cal? Not everyone switched in 1752. In fa
Someone wrote:
> This is completely unacceptable. OS time must be predictable.
Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
> Can someone explain to me exactly what POSIX time is?
Posix time includes leap-year-days, but does not include the finer
resolution of leap-seconds. 21 leap-seconds (number 22 is c
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Mark Baker wrote:
> As it is, we use POSIX time, which means that the system time follows GMT.
> When there is a leap second the time itself is changed; the timezone
> information does not need to.
>
> > This is completely unacceptable. OS time must be predictable.
>
> Which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > Consider a system using "real" time. On June 31, its idea of time would be
> > wrong until the next software upgrade.
>
> No. Using r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote on 20.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What's the big deal? Why would you have to update everything? All
> you do is add an extra second to your system clock at the end of June
> and be done with it. Or you don't. Big deal.
That's when you use POSIX time
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> Consider a system using "real" time. On June 31, its idea of time would be
> wrong until the next software upgrade.
No. Using real time, the system clock increments normally, and correctly
measures the time si
What's the big deal? Why would you have to update everything? All
you do is add an extra second to your system clock at the end of June
and be done with it. Or you don't. Big deal.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 18.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 18.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The time is out of joint, o 'cursed spite.
>
> The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology will set it right
> on June 30, at one second before midnight UTC, by adding a leap second.
> Systems that run on POS
13 matches
Mail list logo
