Discussion:
1986 Presentation On Setting A Computer’s Clock Correctly
(too old to reply)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-05-22 02:24:38 UTC
Permalink
One of the recent additions to the Bitsavers vintage computing
collection is this presentation from 1986
<http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/share/SHARE67_Presentation_on_Setting_a_Computers_Clock_Correctly_1986.pdf>
at a session of SHARE (one of the IBM user groups), on how to ensure
your computer’s time is set correctly.

Remember, this was before NTP. But there was already a worldwide
network of atomic clocks, keeping synchronization with each other, and
there were shortwave stations, like WWV in Boulder, Colorado, that
would broadcast pips once per second, synchronized to the atomic clock
network. And there were even consumer-level gadgets, like the one
mentioned in the article from Heath, that would automatically decode
those broadcasts and output a time code a computer could read.

The article has some nice background info. Like did you know there can
be up to a 1-second discrepancy between GMT and UTC? (Actually I think
from other sources the limit might be more like 0.9 seconds.)

IBM’s mainframe OS developers were perceptive enough to realize that
it can be useful to have the computer keep time in GMT, and maintain
an offset for calculating local time. Particular site admins could of
course have the choice of using local time for the system time, and
setting the offset to zero.

Changing the offset for daylight saving could be a fraught procedure,
though. The level of confusion it could cause for running applications
was such that it was safer to do a reboot.

One little item I don’t recall coming across before, another of those
NASA programming screwups:

One of the famous programming mistakes of all time was by the
programmer who thought the earth revolved on its axis once every
24 hours and used that fact to calculate landing sites for the
Mercury space flights. Our first astronauts spent a lot more time
in the water than they should have because of that.
John Levine
2024-05-22 03:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
One of the recent additions to the Bitsavers vintage computing
collection is this presentation from 1986
<http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/share/SHARE67_Presentation_on_Setting_a_Computers_Clock_Correctly_1986.pdf>
at a session of SHARE (one of the IBM user groups), on how to ensure
your computer’s time is set correctly. ...
In the early 1970s Princeton had a 360/91. An enterprising student
build a device he called TOAD for Time Of Any Day which listened to
WWV to track the time and looked to the /91 like a console terinal.
When the /91 started up, it'd unlock the terminal's simulated keyboard
and the TOAD would type a command to set the clock. It had a cute
picture of a toad on the front, with eyes that lit up on the builder's
birthday.

This is all from memory. I have not been able to find anything written
about it.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Andy Burns
2024-05-22 14:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
In the early 1970s Princeton had a 360/91. An enterprising student
build a device he called TOAD for Time Of Any Day which listened to
WWV to track the time and looked to the /91 like a console terinal.
When the /91 started up, it'd unlock the terminal's simulated keyboard
and the TOAD would type a command to set the clock.
The report in the O/P describes a similar device using a Heathkit receiver.
Andy Burns
2024-05-22 14:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
did you know there can
be up to a 1-second discrepancy between GMT and UTC? (Actually I think
from other sources the limit might be more like 0.9 seconds.)
Is that just leap-seconds, or something else?
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
IBM’s mainframe OS developers were perceptive enough to realize that
it can be useful to have the computer keep time in GMT, and maintain
an offset for calculating local time. Particular
So do current IBM mainframes have a Year
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-05-22 22:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
did you know there can be up to a 1-second discrepancy between GMT and
UTC? (Actually I think from other sources the limit might be more like
0.9 seconds.)
Is that just leap-seconds, or something else?
Yeah, it’s about leap seconds. Also I think there is an ambiguity in the
official/legal definition of GMT. Or used to be. It wasn’t clear whether
it was supposed to be equal to UT1 (based on the average rotation rate of
the Earth) or UTC (TAI ± leap seconds). The leap-second adjustments are
meant to keep UTC within ± 0.9 seconds of UT1.

Nowadays I gather the term “GMT” is supposed to be obsolescent anyway
(along with the “Greenwich Meridian”). The official mainland-UK timezone
abbreviation is “BST” during winter, and “BDT” during summer.

News networks, though, still seem to think “GMT” is a thing.
John Dallman
2024-05-22 23:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Nowadays I gather the term _GMT_ is supposed to be obsolescent
anyway (along with the _Greenwich Meridian_). The official
mainland-UK timezone abbreviation is _BST_ during winter, and _BDT_
during summer.
Citation needed. The only "British Standard Time" I can find was the name
for the experiment with staying on GMT+1 year-round from 1968-71. The
British are still using GMT in winter, and British Summer Time in summer.


John
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2024-05-23 07:03:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 May 2024 00:07 +0100 (BST)
Post by John Dallman
Nowadays I gather the term _GMT_ is supposed to be obsolescent
anyway (along with the _Greenwich Meridian_). The official
mainland-UK timezone abbreviation is _BST_ during winter, and _BDT_
during summer.
Citation needed. The only "British Standard Time" I can find was the name
for the experiment with staying on GMT+1 year-round from 1968-71. The
British are still using GMT in winter, and British Summer Time in summer.
While the Irish use Irish Standard Time in summer and fall back to
GMT in winter.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope
Dennis Boone
2024-05-22 19:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Remember, this was before NTP.
Network Working Group D.L. Mills
Request for Comments: 958 M/A-COM Linkabit
September 1985
Network Time Protocol (NTP)

De
vallor
2024-05-22 22:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Boone
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Remember, this was before NTP.
Network Working Group D.L.
Mills Request for Comments: 958
M/A-COM Linkabit
September
1985
Network Time Protocol (NTP)
De
Also:

Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 867 ISI
May 1983



Daytime Protocol


...which was built-in to inetd (from the very beginning, perhaps?).
--
-Scott
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-05-22 22:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Boone
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Remember, this was before NTP.
Mills Request for Comments: 958
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, when was it actually standardized?
vallor
2024-05-22 22:58:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 May 2024 22:21:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Dennis Boone
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Remember, this was before NTP.
Mills Request for Comments: 958
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, when was it actually standardized?
The best answer for your question would be 1985.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol

"In 1985, NTP version 0 (NTPv0) was implemented in both Fuzzball and Unix,
and the NTP packet header and round-trip delay and offset calculations,
which have persisted into NTPv4, were documented in RFC 958."

(You have to understand that RFC's often document an existing
reference implementation. What does "standardized" mean with
respect to an _RFC_?)
--
-Scott
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-05-22 23:30:25 UTC
Permalink
What does "standardized" mean with respect to an _RFC_?)
When it becomes one of the “STD”-series documents.
vallor
2024-05-23 00:02:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
What does "standardized" mean with respect to an _RFC_?)
When it becomes one of the “STD”-series documents.
And do you have an example of one of these documents
from 1985?
--
-Scott
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-05-23 00:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by vallor
On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
What does "standardized" mean with respect to an _RFC_?)
When it becomes one of the “STD”-series documents.
And do you have an example of one of these documents from 1985?
Precisely my point.
vallor
2024-05-23 04:14:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 May 2024 00:30:47 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by vallor
On Wed, 22 May 2024 23:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
What does "standardized" mean with respect to an _RFC_?)
When it becomes one of the “STD”-series documents.
And do you have an example of one of these documents from 1985?
Precisely my point.
And _my_ point is that the "standards" of the time _were_
the RFCs -- there were no "STD" documents.

(Dr. Postel tried to think of the most unassuming and gentle name
for these documents. Given the political (and religious) natures
of how the Net was built, "Request For Comments" was a brilliant
way to refer to them.)

(BTW, rdate(1) is still around, too, and can still talk to
the daytime service in inetd. Gotta love the staying power
of these implementations.)
--
-Scott
Loading...