Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13769 > unrolled thread
| Started by | not.socialnetwork@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 49 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 06:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 13:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 07:59 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 21:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-02-28 22:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-02-28 18:01 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 01:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 07:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 10:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 17:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:33 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-02 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 09:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-02 17:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-02 16:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> - 2015-03-05 08:36 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 11:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-01 17:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-01 19:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-03 22:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 00:50 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 01:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-04 17:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-06 00:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-06 06:55 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 07:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 22:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 01:07 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-05 10:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 10:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 15:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 17:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:49 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 23:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-04 17:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-04 09:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 13:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 09:14 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 08:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 21:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 19:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 09:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-03-01 07:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-03-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 07:37 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-03 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 10:44 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-01 19:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 20:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 14:49 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-02-28 19:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-01 14:22 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 16:12 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-03-02 19:57 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 10:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-03 19:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:39 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-04 08:52 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:23 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:16 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-05 22:38 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-03-06 18:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-06 08:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-07 00:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 02:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-07 21:15 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-03-07 21:44 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-08 16:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-08 09:42 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-03 23:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 08:52 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-05 09:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 09:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 04:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-11 05:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-03-11 07:58 -0700
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-03-11 13:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-12 13:50 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-13 13:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 15:10 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-04-14 00:30 +1000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-04-15 22:37 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-17 02:32 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 23:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-27 13:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-13 16:22 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-13 21:14 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-13 21:55 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:29 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:11 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-04-14 05:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-04 03:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 04:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-05-04 07:54 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2015-05-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> - 2015-05-04 22:31 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-04 19:13 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 02:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> - 2015-05-05 08:04 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-05 09:22 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 18:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 23:16 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-11 17:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 07:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 08:27 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 15:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:08 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 12:41 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:03 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:59 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 22:58 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-13 01:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-13 08:14 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 09:24 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 11:50 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 18:52 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:36 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:00 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-14 23:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-14 20:58 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-15 06:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2015-04-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 05:21 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-04-16 11:42 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 12:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 13:42 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 15:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 23:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 09:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-04-16 06:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-04-16 16:32 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-17 01:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-17 06:34 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-18 23:13 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-04-13 20:39 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 07:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c9faa9d271f7399859d4a66e16d4860e@remailer.cpunk.us> |
| In reply to | #14698 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > Actually intrnally it too just keeps count of seconds. There is a well > defined algorithm to turn seconds since epoch into civil time. Unless you fail to keep your leap seconds table up-to-date. Civil time is not linear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mi8djo$6cf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14700 |
On 2015-05-04, Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote: > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > >> Actually intrnally it too just keeps count of seconds. There is a well >> defined algorithm to turn seconds since epoch into civil time. > > Unless you fail to keep your leap seconds table up-to-date. Civil time is > not linear. Agreed. But there is still a well defined algorithm. The RTC is worse. As far as I know, it never takes leap seconds into account. Fortunately it is usually recalibrated on shutdown, so the system, which should take leap seconds into account ( although I am not sure Windows does) can reinitialise the RTC. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <54be9f3ceaUCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #14701 |
In article <mi8djo$6cf$1@dont-email.me>, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > As far as I know, it never takes leap seconds into account. When you're my age, the right day'll do, more or less. Time to the minute is a luxury! Seconds? Pah! John -- John Williams, now back in the UK - no attachments to these addresses! Non-RISC OS posters change user to johnrwilliams or put 'risc' in subject! Who is John Williams? http://petit.four.free.fr/picindex/author/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 22:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5547d725$0$2832$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #14701 |
William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-05-04, Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote: >> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >> >>> Actually intrnally it too just keeps count of seconds. There is a well >>> defined algorithm to turn seconds since epoch into civil time. >> >> Unless you fail to keep your leap seconds table up-to-date. Civil time is >> not linear. > > Agreed. But there is still a well defined algorithm. The RTC is worse. > As far as I know, it never takes leap seconds into account. Fortunately > it is usually recalibrated on shutdown, so the system, which should take > leap seconds into account ( although I am not sure Windows does) can > reinitialise the RTC. > The unix system clock ignores leap seconds. Each day since the epoch is counted as 24 * 3600 seconds. Look at the value of the counter tonight at midnight UTC: ~$ date +%s -u -d 'May 5 2015 00:00:00' 1430784000 This is exactly 16560 * 24 * 3600. So leap second are not counted in the system clock's representation of "the number of seconds since the epoch". Regards, Kees. -- Kees Theunissen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mi8s6m$2kn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14703 |
On 2015-05-04, Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> wrote: > William Unruh wrote: >> On 2015-05-04, Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote: >>> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Actually intrnally it too just keeps count of seconds. There is a well >>>> defined algorithm to turn seconds since epoch into civil time. >>> >>> Unless you fail to keep your leap seconds table up-to-date. Civil time is >>> not linear. >> >> Agreed. But there is still a well defined algorithm. The RTC is worse. >> As far as I know, it never takes leap seconds into account. Fortunately >> it is usually recalibrated on shutdown, so the system, which should take >> leap seconds into account ( although I am not sure Windows does) can >> reinitialise the RTC. >> > > The unix system clock ignores leap seconds. Each day since the epoch > is counted as 24 * 3600 seconds. Well, yes and no. If you have no way of telling your system that a leap second is to occur, then it cannot take account of it. If houser you have the leapsecond file or are running ntpd or chronyd then it does take leap seconds into account. > > Look at the value of the counter tonight at midnight UTC: > > ~$ date +%s -u -d 'May 5 2015 00:00:00' > 1430784000 > > This is exactly 16560 * 24 * 3600. So leap second are not counted in > the system clock's representation of "the number of seconds since the > epoch". Which means that leap seconds HAVE been taken into account since there have been leap seconds since the epoch. The clock gives UTC. Of course this depends on what you call "takes account Which means that leap seconds HAVE been taken into account since there have been leap seconds since the epoch. The clock gives UTC. Of course this depends on what you call "takes account". The number of seconds since the epoch is just what it would be if leap seconds were taken into account. That is not the same as the number of seconds that have actually elapsed since Jan1 1970. > > > Regards, > > Kees. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 19:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87a8xj6fuu.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #14704 |
William Unruh writes: > Which means that leap seconds HAVE been taken into account since there > have been leap seconds since the epoch. The clock gives UTC. Of course > this depends on what you call "takes account". The number of seconds > since the epoch is just what it would be if leap seconds were taken > into account. That is not the same as the number of seconds that have > actually elapsed since Jan1 1970. Unix time is the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 UTC 1 January 1970. Leap seconds are ignored. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mi9bg0$a18$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14705 |
On 2015-05-05, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > William Unruh writes: >> Which means that leap seconds HAVE been taken into account since there >> have been leap seconds since the epoch. The clock gives UTC. Of course >> this depends on what you call "takes account". The number of seconds >> since the epoch is just what it would be if leap seconds were taken >> into account. That is not the same as the number of seconds that have >> actually elapsed since Jan1 1970. > > Unix time is the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 UTC > 1 January 1970. Leap seconds are ignored. Not sure what you mean by "leap seconds are ignored". AFAIK Unix time is UTC. UTC is does "ignore" leap seconds. Ie, they are not counted in the counting of the number of seconds between two dates. Is this what you are saying, or are you saying that Unix time is TAI?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 08:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AABVSHY+740AAAoA.A1.flnews@WStation3.stz-e.de> |
| In reply to | #14706 |
William Unruh wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > William Unruh writes: > > > > > > Which means that leap seconds HAVE been taken into account since there > > > have been leap seconds since the epoch. The clock gives UTC. Of course > > > this depends on what you call "takes account". The number of seconds > > > since the epoch is just what it would be if leap seconds were taken > > > into account. That is not the same as the number of seconds that have > > > actually elapsed since Jan1 1970. > > > > Unix time is the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 UTC > > 1 January 1970. Leap seconds are ignored. > > Not sure what you mean by "leap seconds are ignored". AFAIK Unix time is > UTC. UTC is does "ignore" leap seconds. Ie, they are not counted in the > counting of the number of seconds between two dates. Is this what you > are saying, or are you saying that Unix time is TAI? The definition of POSIX "seconds since epoche" and how to convert an UTC date to this representation can be found here: <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15> [Xpost and Fup2 set to comp.os.linux.misc]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 09:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv383ba0xj.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf87AxnpFoA.invalid> |
| In reply to | #14706 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > On 2015-05-05, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: >> William Unruh writes: >>> Which means that leap seconds HAVE been taken into account since there >>> have been leap seconds since the epoch. The clock gives UTC. Of course >>> this depends on what you call "takes account". The number of seconds >>> since the epoch is just what it would be if leap seconds were taken >>> into account. That is not the same as the number of seconds that have >>> actually elapsed since Jan1 1970. >> >> Unix time is the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 UTC >> 1 January 1970. Leap seconds are ignored. > > Not sure what you mean by "leap seconds are ignored". He means exactly that. Count all the elapsed seconds since the epoch except for leap seconds. That’s the time_t value return by time(). > AFAIK Unix time is UTC. UTC is does "ignore" leap seconds. I’m not sure what you mean by “is does”. Traditional Unix time (or CLOCK_REALTIME) is just a counter, as described above. You can recover the corresponding UTC time (without knowing leap seconds) and the corresponding TAI time (but you need to know about all the leap seconds). You can’t go the other way: the moment half way through a leap second simply cannot be represented in Unix time. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87383brw82.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #14706 |
I wrote: > Unix time is the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 UTC > 1 January 1970. Leap seconds are ignored. William Unruh writes: > Not sure what you mean by "leap seconds are ignored". AFAIK Unix time > is UTC. UTC is does "ignore" leap seconds. Ie, they are not counted in > the counting of the number of seconds between two dates. Is this what > you are saying, or are you saying that Unix time is TAI? Except for the difference in epoch, yes, Unix time essentially is TAI. It is a stream of sequentially numbered seconds. The UTC jiggery-pokery of skipping occasional seconds to try to approximate the irregular rotation of the Earth is ignored. In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mib0v7$5ta$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14709 |
On 2015-05-05, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > I wrote: >> Unix time is the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 UTC >> 1 January 1970. Leap seconds are ignored. > > William Unruh writes: >> Not sure what you mean by "leap seconds are ignored". AFAIK Unix time >> is UTC. UTC is does "ignore" leap seconds. Ie, they are not counted in >> the counting of the number of seconds between two dates. Is this what >> you are saying, or are you saying that Unix time is TAI? > > Except for the difference in epoch, yes, Unix time essentially is TAI. > It is a stream of sequentially numbered seconds. The UTC jiggery-pokery > of skipping occasional seconds to try to approximate the irregular > rotation of the Earth is ignored. > > In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. Well, you and Kettlewell disagree. I also found the Wikipedia Unix_time, which they define as equivalent to Posix time,which says that Unix time is UTC seconds (ie leap seconds are not counted) except during the leapsecond itself when UTC adds in a 60th second to the hour, while Unix time jumps back at the end of that second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | druck <news@druck.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mir9l3$sgk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14709 |
On 05/05/2015 14:26, John Hasler wrote: > In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. Every Unix and Linux machine, and an enormous amount of C & C++ code running on any platform, may beg to differ. ---druck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 17:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <873832ohgh.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #14759 |
I wrote: > In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. druck writes: > Every Unix and Linux machine, and an enormous amount of C & C++ code > running on any platform, may beg to differ. All using an offset version of UTC. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 07:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mis5ef$mc3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14760 |
On 11/05/15 23:52, John Hasler wrote: > I wrote: >> In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. > > druck writes: >> Every Unix and Linux machine, and an enormous amount of C & C++ code >> running on any platform, may beg to differ. > > All using an offset version of UTC. > That is what Linux time IS. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 06:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mis7lm$a7m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14763 |
On 2015-05-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 11/05/15 23:52, John Hasler wrote: >> I wrote: >>> In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. >> >> druck writes: >>> Every Unix and Linux machine, and an enormous amount of C & C++ code >>> running on any platform, may beg to differ. >> >> All using an offset version of UTC. >> > That is what Linux time IS. He said Unix time. From Wikipedia Unix time (also known as POSIX time or erroneously as Epoch time) is a system for describing instants in time, defined as the number of seconds that have elapsed since 00:00:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), Thursday, 1 January 1970,[1][note 1] not counting leap seconds.[1][2][note 2] It is used widely in Unix-like and many other operating systems and file formats. Due to its handling of leap seconds, it is neither a linear representation of time nor a true representation of UTC.[note 3] Unix time may be checked on most Unix systems by typing date +%s on the command line. > > And Note 3: Unix time cannot unambiguously represent UTC leap seconds (e.g. 31 December 1998 23:59:60), although otherwise the times it represents are UTC. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 08:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <misa1g$u69$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14766 |
On 12/05/15 07:47, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-05-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/05/15 23:52, John Hasler wrote: >>> I wrote: >>>> In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. >>> >>> druck writes: >>>> Every Unix and Linux machine, and an enormous amount of C & C++ code >>>> running on any platform, may beg to differ. >>> >>> All using an offset version of UTC. >>> >> That is what Linux time IS. > > He said Unix time. > > From Wikipedia > Unix time (also known as POSIX time or erroneously as Epoch time) is a > system for describing instants in time, defined as the number of seconds > that have elapsed since 00:00:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), > Thursday, 1 January 1970,[1][note 1] not counting leap > seconds.[1][2][note 2] It is used widely in Unix-like and many other > operating systems and file formats. Due to its handling of leap seconds, > it is neither a linear representation of time nor a true representation > of UTC.[note 3] Unix time may be checked on most Unix systems by typing > date +%s on the command line. >> >> > And Note 3: Unix time cannot unambiguously represent UTC leap seconds > (e.g. 31 December 1998 23:59:60), although otherwise the times it > represents are UTC. >> So. Nothing in that disagrees with what I said. there is a 1:1 correlation between Unix time and UTC. Every single second of linux time corresponds to a single second in UTC. Except where leap seconds are added, but that too is a formal defined and fixed relationship. On a Linux or Unix system unix time is THE time the system has. Its *interpreted* into UTC or other time by the local time functions, for human ease, but files are not marked with UTC. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mit74b$338$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14767 |
On 2015-05-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 12/05/15 07:47, William Unruh wrote: >> On 2015-05-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/05/15 23:52, John Hasler wrote: >>>> I wrote: >>>>> In practice no one actually uses Unix time as far as I know. >>>> >>>> druck writes: >>>>> Every Unix and Linux machine, and an enormous amount of C & C++ code >>>>> running on any platform, may beg to differ. >>>> >>>> All using an offset version of UTC. >>>> >>> That is what Linux time IS. >> >> He said Unix time. >> >> From Wikipedia >> Unix time (also known as POSIX time or erroneously as Epoch time) is a >> system for describing instants in time, defined as the number of seconds >> that have elapsed since 00:00:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), >> Thursday, 1 January 1970,[1][note 1] not counting leap >> seconds.[1][2][note 2] It is used widely in Unix-like and many other >> operating systems and file formats. Due to its handling of leap seconds, >> it is neither a linear representation of time nor a true representation >> of UTC.[note 3] Unix time may be checked on most Unix systems by typing >> date +%s on the command line. >>> >>> >> And Note 3: Unix time cannot unambiguously represent UTC leap seconds >> (e.g. 31 December 1998 23:59:60), although otherwise the times it >> represents are UTC. >>> > So. Nothing in that disagrees with what I said. Except for the representation of leap seconds. There is NO equivalent of 23:59:60 for example on Unix time. That is the time designation for a leap second in UTC. > > there is a 1:1 correlation between Unix time and UTC. So no there is not a 1:1 correlation. > > Every single second of linux time corresponds to a single second in > UTC. Except leap seconds. > > Except where leap seconds are added, but that too is a formal defined > and fixed relationship. No, there is no designation of a leap second on Unix time. Unix time will never return the designation above. It simply stops the clock for that second making 23:59:59 two seconds long, not one. > > On a Linux or Unix system unix time is THE time the system has. Its > *interpreted* into UTC or other time by the local time functions, for > human ease, but files are not marked with UTC. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 17:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvegml7p7v.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf87AxnpFoA.invalid> |
| In reply to | #14768 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > On 2015-05-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Every single second of linux time corresponds to a single second in >> UTC. > > Except leap seconds. > >> Except where leap seconds are added, but that too is a formal defined >> and fixed relationship. > > No, there is no designation of a leap second on Unix time. Unix time > will never return the designation above. It simply stops the clock for > that second making 23:59:59 two seconds long, not one. TNP is right to say that each second of Unix time corresponds to a single second in UTC; formally speaking, there is an injective mapping from Unix time to UTC. The reverse isn’t true, but I don’t think he (or anyone else) is claiming it is. As such “Except leap seconds” make no sense as a response, because there is no representation of them among “every second of Unix time”. However, under current policies, future leap seconds are not fixed; the need for them is determined through measurement and their introduction is not predictable. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mitcqk$rvc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14769 |
On 2015-05-12, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> On 2015-05-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Every single second of linux time corresponds to a single second in >>> UTC. >> >> Except leap seconds. >> >>> Except where leap seconds are added, but that too is a formal defined >>> and fixed relationship. >> >> No, there is no designation of a leap second on Unix time. Unix time >> will never return the designation above. It simply stops the clock for >> that second making 23:59:59 two seconds long, not one. > > TNP is right to say that each second of Unix time corresponds to a > single second in UTC; formally speaking, there is an injective mapping That depends on what you mean by "every second of Unix time". Unix time, UTC time, etc are all concerned with how the seconds are labeled. In Unix time, the leap seconds are either unlabeled, or in (almost) all implimentations they are labeled with the same label as the last second before the leap second. I do not believe tht any computer in existence would, if asked for the time on a leapsecond, return either and error, or an undefined. On linux it returns the same label as the previous second. On Android apparently, the time throught a timespan around the leapsecond returns a time which differs from UTC of Unix time by up to a second. I do not know what Posix says you should return if a time request comes in during a leapsecond. Wikipedia claims that Unix time proceeds through the leapsecond, and then jumps back at the start of the next second. Thus the same Unix label refers to two different labels in either UTC or TAI. Of course actually implimenting that would be a disaster, since, for example, a timestamp indicating a later time could have actually occured at an earlier time, confusing the hell out of the system. Thus Mills stops the clock and has the system clock return a slightly (by microseconds) later time on a subsequent call to the stopped clock. (Ie, the clock does not exactly stop, it ticks by a microsecond but only when actually queried.) That ensure that the clock always advances-- a later reading gives a later time. Pretty horrible if you are timing something, but... > from Unix time to UTC. The reverse isn???t true, but I don???t think he (or > anyone else) is claiming it is. As such ???Except leap seconds??? make no > sense as a response, because there is no representation of them among > ???every second of Unix time???. Sure there is. > > However, under current policies, future leap seconds are not fixed; the > need for them is determined through measurement and their introduction > is not predictable. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 12:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87pp65n163.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #14771 |
William Unruh writes: > Wikipedia claims that Unix time proceeds through the leapsecond, and > then jumps back at the start of the next second. Thus the same Unix > label refers to two different labels in either UTC or TAI. That's POSIX time. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web