FreeBSD handles leapsecond correctly
M. Warner Losh
imp at bsdimp.com
Mon Jan 2 21:20:09 PST 2006
In message: <20060102211956.GA10928 at merlin.emma.line.org>
Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes:
: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: > In message <m3psnagxrb.fsf at merlin.emma.line.org>, Matthias Andree writes:
: >
: > >And tell me one reason why the leap second must be discontinued while
: > >the leap day (Feb 29th) can be carried on. It's the same story,
: > >irregular rollover, inserting one particular unit of time.
: >
: > You are clearly not thinking rationally here.
: >
: > I know already now that year 2048 will be a leap year, but I still
: > don't know if there will be a leap second on june 30th 2006.
:
: And you can predict the DST rules for all major countries for 2048? Who
: says the EU won't discontinue DST effective 2008? We don't know yet.
:
: You suggest UTC needs to be used because civil time matters, yet at the
: same time UTC were broken, and thus POSIX were broken, but could not be
: blamed for picking UTC.
:
: Leap days (called leap year, to compensate for earth orbiting the sun),
: leap hours (called daylight savings time, completely artificial); aren't
: questioned, but leap seconds are.
:
: Is it just me who sees inconsistencies in your argumentation here?
No. UTC has no timezones, so is nearly predictable for long stretches
of time. Leap seconds are a random pertebtation that can only be
known as a table. Leap days are know for the next several thousand
years.
: No offense, but I simply don't get your point. Another question: Did you
: mean to write "FreeBSD handles leapsecond in POSIX compliance" for the
: subject?
FreeBSD did it right. End of story.
Warner
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list