Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93881 > unrolled thread

The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  The Leap Second is Dead.  How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:45 +0000
    Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-16 16:56 +0100
      Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:08 +0000
    Re: The Leap Second is Dead.  How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Cóilín Nioclásín Glostéir <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-10-16 19:13 +0000
    Re: The Leap Second is Dead.  How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 13:29 +0000
      Re: The Leap Second is Dead.  How Will GNU/Linux Cope? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 13:51 +0000
      Re: The Leap Second is Dead.  How Will GNU/Linux Cope? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 14:19 +0000
        Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 19:37 +0200
          Re: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:25 +0100
          Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-18 11:57 +0000
            Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:20 +0200
              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0100
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:31 +0200
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0100
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:35 +0000
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 18:45 +0000
                      Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:41 +0000
                        Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-19 00:57 +0000
                          Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-19 09:26 +0100
                            Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-19 14:17 +0000
                        Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:11 +0000
                          Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:38 +0000
                            Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:52 +0000
                              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:56 +0000
                                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 05:58 +0000
                          Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-19 03:03 +0000
                        Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:49 +0000
                        Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 11:49 +0100
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:15 +0100
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 00:44 -0400
                      Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 11:54 +0100
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 20:27 +0200
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:38 +0200
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:26 +0100
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 18:59 +0000
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 20:36 +0200
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 18:55 +0000
              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:05 +0000
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:41 +0100
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-10-19 00:15 +0000
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:02 +0000
                    Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 11:48 +0100
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:42 +0000
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 20:49 +0200
            Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:21 +0100
              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:04 +0000
            Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-18 14:07 +0000
              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-18 11:45 -0700
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-18 19:27 +0000
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:30 +0000
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:06 +0000
              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:05 +0000
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0000
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-18 19:37 +0000
                  Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:20 +0000
                Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:40 +0100
              Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 21:00 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#94263 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...)

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 00:15:06 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:

> To me the metric system makes no sense. I don't grok it at all.

Doesn’t matter what units your country uses, they are all officially
defined in terms of SI units anyway.

I was reading an article earlier today about NASA’s Artemis II mission
to the Moon. They were measuring their distance from the Earth in (get
this) nautical miles. Why?? As far as I know, they give their
velocities in (non-nautical) miles per second or (non-nautical) miles
per hour; so after travelling an hour at 18,000 miles per hour, they
won’t say they’ve done 18,000 miles, they give a figure like 15,642
nautical miles instead?!?

To me, that’s just making extra work for yourself -- and introducing
more opportunities to make mistakes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94311 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 19/10/2026 01:15, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2026-10-18, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Of course. rims are inches, tyre tread widths are mm.
> 
> Since the person I was asking said that only metric is taught
> in his country's schools, I was wondering if people there just
> scratch their heads in confusion when buying tires.
> 
> To me the metric system makes no sense. I don't grok it at all.
> But fortunately in the U.S. the exposure to it is minimal.
> 
It would seem that your exposure to metric is as limited by narrow 
experience as Carlos' is to non metric


-- 
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social 
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the 
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94274 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 20:41:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 18/10/2026 20:05, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2026-10-18, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> Here, the imperial system is not even mentioned in school. All is SI.
>>> As in most countries.
>> 
>> How are vehicles wheel/tire diameters in your country measured?
>> All the imported cars I see here in the U.S. have wheels and tire size
>> measured in inches.
>> 
> Of course. rims are inches, tyre tread widths are mm.

They're slowly going to metric but bike tires, particularly tube type  
knobbies, still are sometimes in inches. 

https://fortnine.ca/en/converting-motorcycle-tire-sizing-systems

I'm pretty sure my current set of Kendas are stamped in inches.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94352 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 2026-10-18 21:05, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2026-10-18, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Here, the imperial system is not even mentioned in school. All is SI. As
>> in most countries.
> 
> How are vehicles wheel/tire diameters in your country measured?
> All the imported cars I see here in the U.S. have wheels and
> tire size measured in inches.

I don't know. I just ask my mechanic for a new set of wheels, in the 
acceptable set listed by the manufacturer :-D


Google says:

Car wheels are measured using specific dimensions and a mix of inches 
and millimeters, according to Wikipedia.

Main Measurements and Units

• Diameter (Rim Size): Measured in inches. This is the distance across 
the wheel taken from the inside bead seat (where the tire mounts) rather 
than the very outer edge of the lip.

• Width: Measured in inches. This is the distance between the inner bead 
seat and the outer bead seat of the rim.

• Offset (ET): Measured in millimeters (mm). This is the distance from 
the wheel's centerline to the surface that bolts against the car hub. It 
can be positive, negative, or zero.

• PCD (Pitch Circle Diameter / Bolt Pattern): Expressed as the number of 
bolt holes and the diameter of an imaginary circle passing through their 
centers, measured in millimeters (mm) (e.g., 5x114.3).

• Center Bore: Measured in millimeters (mm). This is the diameter of the 
large hole right in the center of the wheel that fits over the vehicle's 
hub.

If you are looking up a specific wheel or tire size, let me know the 
year, make, and model of your car and I can help you find the stock 
dimensions.


And the tires?

Car tires (the rubber part) are measured using a mix of three different 
metric and imperial units. If you look at the sidewall of a tire, you 
will see a standardized code like 205/55R16, which breaks down as follows:

1. Section Width (Millimeters)

The first number indicates the width of the tire from sidewall to 
sidewall in millimeters (mm). For example, a 205 tire is 205 millimeters 
wide at its widest point.

2. Aspect Ratio (Percentage)

The second number is a percentage representing the profile or height of 
the sidewall relative to the tire's width. In a 55 tire, the sidewall 
height is 55% of its 205mm width (which equals about 112.75 mm). Lower 
percentages mean a low-profile tire with a thinner rubber edge.

3. Wheel Diameter (Inches)

The final number tells you the size of the wheel the tire is designed to 
fit, measured in inches. An R16 tire is designed for a 16-inch wheel 
(the "R" stands for radial construction).

Complete Tire Specification Example: 205/55R16 91V


Component	Meaning	Unit / Type
205	Section Width	Millimeters (mm)
55	Aspect Ratio	Percentage (%)
R	Construction Type	Radial
16	Wheel Diameter	Inches (")
91	Load Index	Numeric Code (e.g., 91 = 615 kg)
V	Speed Rating	Letter Code (e.g., V = up to 240 km/h)




In primary school or high school, I never did calculations using inches 
or miles or pounds, we only used the SI. There were lessons on the 
equivalences, taught as a curiosity, not as a real thing. And how to 
convert units.

In engineering schools, we used the SI. I also studied in a Canadian 
college, I felt home there. No inches.

Of course, some engineers have to deal with things such as different 
threads. Marines use the nautical miles, aviators use feet for altitude.




-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94169 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 18/10/2026 12:57, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Believe it or not, this (the age-old discussion of US/Imperial vs. metric)
> actually seems to be another instance of "Yes, it is technically superior,
> but it is not the standard (i.e., what most people use), so we think you
> should go with the standard even though it is technically inferior."
> 
I fail to see anything superior about either system, frankly

And I have used both nearly all my life.

You don't get far as an engineer without being able to convert standards 
rapidly and fluently in your head. Or on a calculator

The arguments are mostly people talking bollocks about stuff they have 
no understanding of, so they substitute violently defended opinions


> There are actually quite a lot of those in life.
> 
> I.e., what I'm saying is that there actually are quite a few arguments to
> be made that US/Imperial is actually better.
> 
*shrug* duodecimal versus decimal. sexadecimal even better 360 dyas in a 
year, almost. Good enough for religion

> Sort of like Betamax (Yes, the classic example of "better does not ensure
> market dominance".)

Again *shrug*. Plywood is sold as 2.4384 metres long, instead of 8 feet. 
Its the same bloody sized wood

It is a complete storm in a bigots teacup.

Any US garage will be using metric and imperial all the time.

Any pilot will be too.


-- 
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the 
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94212 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 13:21:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I fail to see anything superior about either system, frankly

When you are under the car it's much easier to say 'Darling, can you give 
me the 20'  than ask for a 13/16". 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94198 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:57:54 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:

> 
> I.e., what I'm saying is that there actually are quite a few arguments to
> be made that US/Imperial is actually better.
> 

The metric system was imposed, i.e. forced, whereas the Imperial units are
traditional and hence far more natural.

Forcing an entire society to change is never a good idea.  To force SI units
in the laboratory, among professional scientists, may be an easy switch, but
to expect the general, unwashed, population to immediately embrace a new system
of units is folly.

Keep SI in the lab and let the common folk do as they always have done.

Then there is the issue of manufacturing.  Converting a large industrial base,
such as in the US, willy-nilly to SI units is a very expensive undertaking.

For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial
dimensions.  The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, is
still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet.  I highly doubt
that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions.  The saw mills are too old
to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to think differently.

Also, most raw materials such as pipes, tubing, and other parts are still
produced in Imperial units because most everything classified as buildings
or infrastructure was built according to Imperial specs. 

It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94208 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 10/18/2026 07:07, Leroy H wrote:
>[...]

> Then there is the issue of manufacturing.  Converting a large industrial base,
> such as in the US, willy-nilly to SI units is a very expensive undertaking.

On the other hand, NOT joining the world standards has its own cost.

Back in the 1980s, at a PPOE, we licensed a design for an electronic 
device. Having been designed in Scotland, of course all mechanical 
dimensions were given in millimeters. An older manufacturing manager 
wanted it "Americanized" and directed a summer intern to convert all 
dimensions to "traditional" measures. The kid got out a calculator and 
converted all measurements to inches with 3 decimals. When they took it 
to the metal shop, the shop foreman asked if they really needed the 
dimensions exact to 0.001" ? No, of course not, that would be way too 
expensive. So the old guy replaced all the measurements to fractional 
inches instead.

The resulting product never worked right, but had bad fits between the 
PCBs and the card cage, betwwen the chassis frame and the side, top and 
bottom panels, and felt warped when customers tried to mount it in a rack.

Of course, it was all stupid. The machine shop where they built it had 
mostly Japanese machinery, which could do inces or millimeters at the 
flick of a switch.
> For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial
> dimensions.  The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, is
> still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet.  I highly doubt
> that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions.  The saw mills are too old
> to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to think differently.

Your example is a little odd, because a "2 by 4" is NOT 2 inches by 4 
inches and has not been for decades.

A standard 2x4 lumber has actual dimensions of 1.5 inches thick by 3.5 
inches wide (38 mm × 89 mm).

This principle applies to other dimensional lumber as well, such as 2x6, 
2x8, and 4x4, where the actual dimensions are slightly smaller than the 
nominal size to account for finishing processes.

> Also, most raw materials such as pipes, tubing, and other parts are still
> produced in Imperial units because most everything classified as buildings
> or infrastructure was built according to Imperial specs.
> 
> It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric.
Jimmy Carter started, but Reagan reversed the process.
-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94220 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:45:50 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> 
> Your example is a little odd, because a "2 by 4" is NOT 2 inches by 4 
> inches and has not been for decades.
> 
> A standard 2x4 lumber has actual dimensions of 1.5 inches thick by 3.5 
> inches wide (38 mm × 89 mm).
> 

The cutting dimensions at the saw mill are 2" X 4".  After cutting,
however, the lumber is dried in kilns which shrinks the dimensions.

But the size of the lumber throughout the distribution chain is
always based on the original saw mill cutting dimensions.

One never walks into a lumber yard and asks for a "1.5 X 3.5."
It is always "2 X 4."

The same applies to all other lumber products.  It is a peculiar
system but one gets used to it.


>> 
>> It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric.
>
> Jimmy Carter started, but Reagan reversed the process.
>

What I find somewhat amusing is that, like most other DIY
people, I was forced to purchase a set of metric sockets
(at great expense).

Each socket is forged on one end to be a specific metric
size (e.g. 10mm) but the reverse end, where the shaft of
the socket wrench attaches, is forged to an Imperial unit
(e.g. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch). 

The tools are actually a hybrid.

If a society is forced to go metric it should go metric
all the way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94272 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 19:27:52 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

> What I find somewhat amusing is that, like most other DIY people, I was
> forced to purchase a set of metric sockets (at great expense).
> 
> Each socket is forged on one end to be a specific metric size (e.g.
> 10mm)
> but the reverse end, where the shaft of the socket wrench attaches, is
> forged to an Imperial unit (e.g. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch).

I've got a couple of sets of metric sockets but I don't recall either 
being at great expense.

What I find annoying is the number of metric and SAE sockets that are 
almost but not quite the same dimension. That's a real joy when you're 
working on a US vehicle that mixed and matched.

Then there was Harley when they went to Torx fasteners. Most of the early 
Torx sets went T20, T25, T30 etc. Harley threw a few T27s in at odd 
places. A T25 almost works before it strips out the head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94265 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second ...)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:45:50 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> On the other hand, NOT joining the world standards has its own cost.

One odd thing is, most of the countries in the world use Imperial
units for air traffic control. That is, heights are given in feet,
even across Europe and other metric-using countries. (Not sure about
speeds.)

That is, with two exceptions: Russia and China. Fly over those
countries, and they give heights in metres.

Do you think this causes confusion, and possible risk of getting
things wrong? I don’t think so. The safety margins are routinely on
the order of distances measured in large fractions of kilometres (or
miles, if you prefer). So a rounding error here or there won’t really
make much difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94214 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:07:31 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

> For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial
> dimensions.  The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction,
> is still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet.  I highly
> doubt that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions.  The saw mills
> are too old to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to
> think differently.

Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94223 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 18 Oct 2026 19:05:48 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> 
> Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately.
>

That's all one *can* buy.

Trying walking into a lumber yard and asking for
a 1.5 x 3.5.  The sales clerks will call 9-1-1.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94224 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

In article <18dfb69ff983b00f$2364$2483150$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>,
Leroy H  <lh@somewhere.net> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 2026 19:05:48 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> 
>> Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately.
>>
>
>That's all one *can* buy.
>
>Trying walking into a lumber yard and asking for
>a 1.5 x 3.5.  The sales clerks will call 9-1-1.

Well.  I'm going to have to try that sometime.

-- 
The plural of "anecdote" is _not_ "data".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94271 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 19:32:54 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2026 19:05:48 GMT, rbowman wrote:
> 
> 
>> Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately.
>>
>>
> That's all one *can* buy.
> 
> Trying walking into a lumber yard and asking for a 1.5 x 3.5.  The sales
> clerks will call 9-1-1.

You also have to be careful if you want something 8' long. Many are precut 
to 92 5/8" to allow for the top and bottom plates. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94226 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 18/10/2026 20:05, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:07:31 +0000, Leroy H wrote:
> 
>> For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial
>> dimensions.  The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction,
>> is still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet.  I highly
>> doubt that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions.  The saw mills
>> are too old to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to
>> think differently.
> 
> Obviously you haven't bought a 2 by 4 lately.

In the UK they are 2x4 but they call it 100mm x 50mm Planed All Round 
(PAR) so its actually about 40mm x 80mm

It is exactly the same wood that used to be 2x4. But its had the SI 
gender chagne applied


-- 
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale 
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94353 — Re: Metric vs. US/Imperial (Was: The Leap Second is Dead. How Will GNU/Linux Cope?)

On 2026-10-18 16:07, Leroy H wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:57:54 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 
>>
>> I.e., what I'm saying is that there actually are quite a few arguments to
>> be made that US/Imperial is actually better.
>>
> 
> The metric system was imposed, i.e. forced, whereas the Imperial units are
> traditional and hence far more natural.
> 
> Forcing an entire society to change is never a good idea. 

It was a wonderful idea.

I glanced at a dictionary my British grandfather used to deal with 
Spanish units. Lots of pages explaining the many units used in Spain. Be 
aware that in Spain a city could use different units than the next, but 
certainly a region (an old kingdom) would have different units than any 
other region in Spain.

So Spain embraced the SI with glee, somewhere at the start of the XX.



Asking chatgpt for a summary.

Q: Talk to about the multitude of units used in Spain before they 
embraced the metric system, as was called then. When did that happen?


# Spain before the metric system: a world of local measures

Before Spain adopted the metric system, measuring something was a much 
more complicated business than it is today. A farmer selling wheat, a 
merchant measuring cloth, a builder laying out a house, and a muleteer 
transporting wine might all use different units. Even when they used the 
same name for a unit, its value could vary from one town or region to 
another.

Spain did not have one perfectly uniform system of measurement. It had a 
patchwork of traditional Castilian units, older Roman-derived measures, 
local customs, and regional systems in places such as Catalonia, 
Valencia, Aragon, Navarre and Galicia.

The change to the metric system was therefore not simply a matter of 
changing names. It was an attempt to make commerce, taxation, 
engineering and scientific work consistent across the country.

## 1. When did Spain adopt the metric system?

# 1791

France creates the new system

The French Revolution's National Assembly approved the metric system, 
designed around decimal multiples and subdivisions.

# 1801

Spain attempts to standardise its traditional measures

The Spanish monarchy unified and regulated many Castilian measures, but 
this did not eliminate all the regional differences.

# 1849

The decisive date: 19 July 1849

Queen Isabella II sanctioned Spain's Ley de Pesas y Medidas, 
establishing the Sistema Métrico Decimal as the national system.

Mineco Portal

+1

# 1852

Conversion tables are published

The authorities published official correspondences between traditional 
local measures and metric units, helping people make the transition.

Mineco Portal

+1

There is an important distinction here: 1849 was the year of legal 
adoption, not the year when everybody suddenly stopped using the old 
measures. Traditional units survived in some places well into the 
twentieth century.

Mineco Portal

+1

## 2. The extraordinary variety of Spanish units

Here are some of the most interesting units you would have encountered 
in Spain before metrication.

La vara: origen, medidas y equivalencias - MD Pajedrez

### Vara

Length

A traditional measuring rod used for cloth, construction and land 
measurement. The Castilian vara de Burgos was approximately 0.836 
metres. Other regional standards differed; the Catalan cana, for 
example, was much longer.

NIST

+1

asociación de vecinos y amigos de VELLOSILLO: Equivalencias del sistema 
de medidas con el sistema métrico decimal

### Libra

Weight

The traditional pound. A Castilian libra was approximately 460 grams, 
although local values varied. It was divided into smaller units such as 
the onza (ounce). The word survives today in Spanish expressions and 
historical recipes.

▷ Medida de Vino jarra de Tajueco media cántara

### Arroba

Weight or capacity

One of the most confusing units because it could measure different 
things. An arroba of weight was commonly 25 Castilian libras, 
approximately 11.5 kg. For wine and oil, however, an arroba was a unit 
of volume, and the conversion depended on the product and locality.

ANTIGUO ALMUD, MEDIDA DE CEREAL o GRANO de segunda mano por 60 EUR en 
Barcelona en WALLAPOP

### Fanega

Grain and land

A farmer might use a fanega to measure grain, but the same word could 
describe a unit of agricultural land. In the Castilian standard, a 
fanega of grain was about 55.5 litres, while a fanega of land was about 
6,460 m². The local definitions were not universal.

Wikipedia

+1

Camino Real de Madrid a Guadalupe

### Legua

Distance

A league, used for journeys and distances between places. The commonly 
used Castilian league was approximately 5.57 kilometres, although 
historical definitions and practical usage were not always consistent.

Centro Español de Metrología

+1

## 3. What made the old system so complicated?

The real problem was not simply the number of units. It was that the 
same unit name could mean different quantities in different places.

The Spanish Ministry of Economy describes how a vara, libra, arroba or 
fanega could have different values even in neighbouring towns. That 
created difficulties for interregional trade and opportunities for 
disputes or fraud.

Mineco Portal

Imagine buying grain in one town and selling it in another. You might 
discover that the local fanega used by your supplier did not correspond 
to the fanega understood by your customer. You could not safely assume 
that the same name meant the same quantity.

The traditional system also used subdivisions that were not consistently 
decimal. A measurement might be divided into 12 parts, 16 parts, halves 
or quarters, depending on the unit. The metric system offered a much 
simpler principle: move between units by multiplying or dividing by ten.

## 4. What about Murcia and the rest of southeastern Spain?

The regional differences are particularly interesting if we look at 
historical records from the Mediterranean coast.

An official Spanish conversion table published in 1851, for example, 
records the cana used in Girona as 1.559 metres, while the vara used in 
Granada followed the Castilian standard. It also lists local measures 
for wine, oil, grain and agricultural land.

BOE

This is a reminder that the old system was not just a list of 
measurements. It was a collection of regional traditions shaped by 
agriculture, trade, local administration and history.

In southeastern Spain, as elsewhere, historical land records and 
agricultural documents may therefore use traditional units whose exact 
values need to be established from the particular municipality or 
document. It is risky to convert every old fanega, tahúlla, arroba or 
celemín using a single nationwide figure.

## 5. How long did the transition take?

The metric system required more than legislation. People had to learn 
new units, merchants needed new weights and measures, and officials had 
to publish conversion tables and enforce the new standards.

Spain's experience illustrates the difference between adopting a system 
on paper and changing everyday habits. The authorities were still 
publishing detailed local conversion tables in the early 1850s, and 
older measures continued in some communities long after that.

Mineco Portal

+1

The historical significance of the change is easy to underestimate. It 
helped establish a common language for trade, engineering, science and 
public administration across a country whose local measurement 
traditions had developed over centuries.

In short: Spain legally adopted the decimal metric system on 19 July 
1849, under Isabella II. But the old measures did not vanish overnight, 
and their regional diversity remains a fascinating part of Spain's 
agricultural, commercial and architectural history.

For further reading, the Spanish Ministry of Economy has a particularly 
useful historical resource: [La introducción del sistema métrico decimal 
en 
España](<https://portal.mineco.gob.es/es-es/ministerio/publicaciones/gratuitas/Paginas/La_introduccion_del_sistema_metrico_decimal_en_Espana__Cartel_de_1868.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com>), 
which reproduces an 1868 explanatory poster showing how the traditional 
units corresponded to the new metric measures.




> To force SI units
> in the laboratory, among professional scientists, may be an easy switch, but
> to expect the general, unwashed, population to immediately embrace a new system
> of units is folly.
> 
> Keep SI in the lab and let the common folk do as they always have done.
> 
> Then there is the issue of manufacturing.  Converting a large industrial base,
> such as in the US, willy-nilly to SI units is a very expensive undertaking.
> 
> For example, virtually all lumber products in the US are cut to Imperial
> dimensions.  The ubiquitous "stud," which is universal in construction, is
> still the "2 by 4" being 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet.  I highly doubt
> that any lumber product is cut to SI dimensions.  The saw mills are too old
> to easily change, and the wood worker is too conditioned to think differently.
> 
> Also, most raw materials such as pipes, tubing, and other parts are still
> produced in Imperial units because most everything classified as buildings
> or infrastructure was built according to Imperial specs.
> 
> It will be a LONG, LONG TIME before US society becomes exclusively metric.
> 
> 


Ah, the colonies are so backward... :-P

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web