Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> $ touch -t 2000 a
> $ touch -t 2011 a
> $ touch -t 2111 a
> touch: invalid date format `2111'
>
> Oh great, can't deal with dates in the next century. Hope this isn't
> a deep routed problem for all of Unix or something.
On 05 Sep 2002, 19:39:22, Craig Dickson wrote:
> > 2038 is when our dates run out:
>
> Right, because the standard Unix time value is a signed 32-bit number of
> seconds from January 1, 1970. Thus, 2^31-1 seconds, which is about 68
> years.
>
> Sure, if we switch to a 64-bit time value, then we'
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 10:30:23PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2002, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>
> > $ touch -t 2000 a
> > $ touch -t 2011 a
> > $ touch -t 2111 a
> > touch: invalid date format `2111'
> >
> > Oh great, can't deal with dates in the next cent
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> 2038 is when our dates run out:
Right, because the standard Unix time value is a signed 32-bit number of
seconds from January 1, 1970. Thus, 2^31-1 seconds, which is about 68
years.
> # touch -t 2037 a
> # touch -t 2038 a
> touch: invalid date format `20
On 6 Sep 2002, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> $ touch -t 2000 a
> $ touch -t 2011 a
> $ touch -t 2111 a
> touch: invalid date format `2111'
>
> Oh great, can't deal with dates in the next century. Hope this isn't
> a deep routed problem for all of Unix or something.
2038
$ touch -t 2000 a
$ touch -t 2011 a
$ touch -t 2111 a
touch: invalid date format `2111'
Oh great, can't deal with dates in the next century. Hope this isn't
a deep routed problem for all of Unix or something.
--
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780
--
To UNS
re to
look for answers.
Edwin Lau
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:47:14AM +0800, Anthony Fok wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:31:55PM -0500, Chun Kit Edwin Lau wrote:
> > I just bought unifont y2k from arphic and I want to install in
> > it. The question is there is a installing
y Fok wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:31:55PM -0500, Chun Kit Edwin Lau wrote:
> > I just bought unifont y2k from arphic and I want to install in
> > it. The question is there is a installing script for Linux (for CLE),
> > and it just copy file to one directory and
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Larry Fletcher wrote:
> I searched through all of the old messages on this subject and
> couldn't find a fix for the problem, except using another time
> server.
>
> My problem is I'm behind a firewall and can only use a local
> time server that won't work with rdate. Has rd
I searched through all of the old messages on this subject and
couldn't find a fix for the problem, except using another time
server.
My problem is I'm behind a firewall and can only use a local
time server that won't work with rdate. Has rdate been fixed
yet? If so, is there somewhere can I get
100
> From: Ger Vloothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Y2K roll call
> To: Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (note: this is fidonet, I am not sure if two digit years are supported
> or not).
>
> Most programs recognise "00" as the year 2000 (eg Gnus).
8 * Feb 16 Ger Vloothuis ( 0) Y2K roll call
>
> How can mutt get so confused it replaces 10 Jan with 16 Feb???
It's actually completely screwed up; the year is 2036 though
you can't see it. It will only handle years 1970 through 2038
correctly. 0 and 1 catch it out and produ
+++-===-==-
ii mutt0.95.3-0.2 Text-based mailreader supporting MIME, GPG,
A mail I received has the following headers:
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 00 12:59:30 +1100
From: Ger Vloothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Y2
readed news reader (fast for slow
> > links)
> >
>
>
> That's the one I have, which no longer works.
>
What problems are you seeing? There also seems to be a problem with nntpd
as supplied in the `nntp' package: the second and subsequent times you run
sl
On 07 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> There was one more pass. You can (or at least could) get it from the
> same place.
>
> $ dpkg -l | grep slrn
> ii slrn0.9.5.3-6 threaded news reader (fast for slow links)
>
That's the one I have, which no longer works.
Anthony
--
Anthon
There was one more pass. You can (or at least could) get it from the
same place.
$ dpkg -l | grep slrn
ii slrn0.9.5.3-6 threaded news reader (fast for slow links)
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:18, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 200
On 03 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 13:05, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Joey Hess wrote:
> > > I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
> > > can get it temporarily at ...
> >
> > Er I meant to say at http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/slrn_0.9.5.3-5_i38
John wrote:
>I have only just seen your message. The error is in the email program
>made available to me by my ISP when I signed on some 20 months ago.
>I had noted the problem with incoming mail, but did not think it would
>affect outgoing mail onto other machines. If I've caused any dif
on 06 Jan, Oliver Elphick wrote...
>
I have only just seen your message. The error is in the email program
made available to me by my ISP when I signed on some 20 months ago.
I had noted the problem with incoming mail, but did not think it would
affect outgoing mail onto other machines. If I've
Quoting Nico De Ranter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> The original sender uses a broken mail program. It's not on your side.
>
> Nico
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> > This message to debian-user shows an invalid date; (year 100). I have
> > seen a couple of others like this on a
The original sender uses a broken mail program. It's not on your side.
Nico
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> This message to debian-user shows an invalid date; (year 100). I have
> seen a couple of others like this on a non-debian list, where another
> subscriber did not see the er
This message to debian-user shows an invalid date; (year 100). I have
seen a couple of others like this on a non-debian list, where another
subscriber did not see the error. I want to establish whether the error
is on my machine or on the original poster's.
John wrote:
> Received: from murphy.de
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 13:05, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
> > can get it temporarily at ...
>
> Er I meant to say at http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/slrn_0.9.5.3-5_i386.deb
>
> > Pann, Jim please download that and
Joey Hess wrote:
> I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
> can get it temporarily at ...
Er I meant to say at http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/slrn_0.9.5.3-5_i386.deb
> Pann, Jim please download that and let me know if it really fixes the problem.
--
see shy jo
I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
can get it temporarily at ...
Pann, Jim please download that and let me know if it really fixes the problem.
--
see shy jo
Brian Servis wrote:
> The bug by the way is the result of sloppy programming. There is a c
> library call that returns the year as the number of years from 1900,
> also used in perl's Time::Local. Authors were using that as the two
> digit year or just appending it to 19, so you are either seeing
Brian Servis wrote:
> Since you did not get a suggestion about dpkg-dev I assume you are using
> a version prior to 6.26. Just to make sure, do you have dpkg-dev
> installed? In slink dpkg-dev was only a Recommends dependency for
> alien, in potato it is a Depends dependency.
Thanks Brian -- tha
> Sounds good, but it won't install. Seems that debhelper has to be
> upgraded as well and 'that' seems to require the perl upgrade.
> Depbelper fails with
> DH_VERSION=10 perl -MTest::Harness -e 'runtests grep { ! /CVS/ }
[...]
I had this problem as well, but the answer I got from the -devel-L
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 22:09, Colin Watson wrote:
> Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
> >
> >NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
> >
> >Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
>
> See:
>
> http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=53811
Thank
Subject: Re: Y2K problem with slrn?
Date: Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 05:49:36PM -0500
In reply to:Brian Servis
Quoting Brian Servis([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>| *- On 2 Jan, Colin Watson wrote about "Re: Y2K problem with slrn?"
>| > Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
*- On 2 Jan, George Bonser wrote about "Re: rdate fails Y2K"
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
>> That's pretty funny, if you think about it. The National Institute of
>> Standards is either breaking a standard themselves, or isn't Y
That's pretty funny, if you think about it. The National Institute of
Standards is either breaking a standard themselves, or isn't Y2K compliant.
HA! That's great!
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 10:50:02AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I get exactly the same error fr
*- On 2 Jan, Colin Watson wrote about "Re: Y2K problem with slrn?"
> Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
>>
>>NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
>>
>>Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
>
>
Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
>
>NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
>
>Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
See:
http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=53811
I imagine there'll be a new release of slrn out soon that solves this
proble
Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
Cheers,
Pann
--
geek by nature, Linux by choice L I N U X .~.
The Choice /V\
http://www.ourmanpann
*- On 1 Jan, Robert L. Harris wrote about "alien not y2k compliant?"
>
> Ok...
> I'm trying to scan myself and build a nice little security tool. This
> is the first thing I've run into but still
>
>
>
>
> {0}:wally:/usr/src/Util-System/
Ok...
I'm trying to scan myself and build a nice little security tool. This
is the first thing I've run into but still
{0}:wally:/usr/src/Util-System/nmap>alien -d nmap-2.3BETA12*rpm
-- Examining nmap-2.3BETA12-1.i386.rpm
-- Unpacking nmap-2.3BETA12-1.i386.rpm
1222 blocks
-- Automatic p
It's working now:
# rdate time.nist.gov
Sat Jan 1 20:12:01 2000
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 05:06:59PM -, Pollywog wrote:
>
> On 01-Jan-2000 Pann McCuaig wrote:
> ># ping time.nist.gov
> > PING time.nist.gov (192.43.244.18): 56 data bytes
> > 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=
I get exactly the same error from time.nist.gov, but:
debian# rdate ntp2.usno.navy.mil
Sat Jan 1 10:45:27 2000
works exactly as before.
Looks like it's a problem specific to the server time.nist.gov.
Jim
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 09:14, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 11:51, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 08:35:10AM -0800, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > > # rdate -p time.nist.gov
> > > rdate: Could not read data: No such file or directory
> >
> > After looking at the source, i
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 11:51, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 08:35:10AM -0800, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > # ping time.nist.gov
> > PING time.nist.gov (192.43.244.18): 56 data bytes
> > 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=85.3 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=
On 01-Jan-2000 Ben Collins wrote:
> After looking at the source, it seems that either time.nist.gov was
> returning too much data, or none at all. Note, this worked when I used my
> ISP's local Solaris time server, so this isn't a problem in rdate itself,
> it has something to do with the time.nis
On 01-Jan-2000 Pann McCuaig wrote:
># ping time.nist.gov
> PING time.nist.gov (192.43.244.18): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=85.3 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=92.2 ms
>
> --- time.nist.gov ping statistics ---
> 2 packets transmitte
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 08:35:10AM -0800, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> # ping time.nist.gov
> PING time.nist.gov (192.43.244.18): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=85.3 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=92.2 ms
>
> --- time.nist.gov ping statistics
# ping time.nist.gov
PING time.nist.gov (192.43.244.18): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=85.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.43.244.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=92.2 ms
--- time.nist.gov ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip
sorry another 48 years till y2k ;)
nate
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Patrick Kirk wrote:
patric >Happy GNU Millennium all!
patric >
patric >
patric >
patric >--
patric >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
patric >
--
Happy GNU Millennium all!
Christian Surchi wrote:
> Now I don't use leafnode, so I couldn't try, but someone told me that leafnode
> has problem with the state of messages after 31/12/99... :o
according the leafnode mailing-list that's fixed since leafnode 1.9.5.
current release is version 1.9.7
--
hafi
On 28-Dec-99 Mark Brown wrote:
> The slink version of Leafnode is very much older than the current
> upstream version and the upstream author doesn't know if the version in
> Slink is affected. I tried a brief test and nothing seemed to go
> spectacularly wrong and nobody else reported a problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Takuo KITAME) writes:
> RM> I'm running emacs 19.34, compiled back in Sep 1996, on Linux, Solaris and
> RM> IRIX64. I haven't found a definitive answer as to whether or not it has
> RM> Y2K problems.
>
> RM> Does anybody know if time
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:52:22 -0700 (MST)
>>>>> "RM" == Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
RM> On 29 Dec 1999, Takuo KITAME wrote:
>> I think that emacs19 19.34(potato/slink) and emacs20 20.3(slink) has the y2k
>> prob
On 29 Dec 1999, Takuo KITAME wrote:
> I think that emacs19 19.34(potato/slink) and emacs20 20.3(slink) has the y2k
> problem in lisp/timezone.el.
> Are package maintainer or anybody working for fix this? or already fixed?
>
> Here is the fixed timezone.el.
> http://master.
Alternatively, you could invest in a couple of guns, dig a hole and bunker
dowm until this and all the other y2k myths pass.
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Wild" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December
99 02:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Infiltration by Y2K hoodlums
>
>
> Question?
>
> Do we need some sort of coded auto-recognition to accompany our email
> to this forum for the next few weeks? Something that would allow us to
> feel secure enough to open the
Typos
piss me off - its 2.25am here at the Home of The Americas
Cup...
Sorry, here goes again
Jim
-Original Message-From: Jim Wild
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 30 December 1999
02:24To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Infiltration
by Y2K hoodlums
Question?
Do we
Hello.
I think that emacs19 19.34(potato/slink) and emacs20 20.3(slink) has the y2k
problem in lisp/timezone.el.
Are package maintainer or anybody working for fix this? or already fixed?
Here is the fixed timezone.el.
http://master.debian.org/~kitame/tmp/timezone.el
(Thanks TSUCHIYA Masatoshi
--uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 06:21:28PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> But... in y2k slink upgrade no new package of leafnode??? What about it? =
:o
The slink version of Leafnode is very m
But... in y2k slink upgrade no new package of leafnode??? What about it? :o
Thanks
Christian
---
GPG fingerprint = D1E2 9A9D 1712 0E94 8671 834E 0CFF 30E1 2625 7B68
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. His email prompted my question. I didn't realize he was *sure*,
> and I wanted to double check before I go make irreversable (well
> without using epochs) changes in the Debian package.
> The real problem was that I didn't notice the release of 20.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Did you miss Miles Bader's correct message about emacs version
> numbering?
No. His email prompted my question. I didn't realize he was *sure*,
and I wanted to double check before I go make irreversable (well
without using epochs) changes in th
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> P.S. The version number is 20.4.pre20.5a-1. This avoids the problem
> with the fact that the upstream tarfile's version 20.5a sorts (via
> dpkg) as newer than 20.5 which hasn't been released yet. Epochs would
> be another solution, but I haven't decided
I'm very happy that there weren't any serious upstream conflicts to
integrate so I was able to package it quickly. It's uploading now,
but I'm on a slow connection ATM, so it might be a while...
Although I've been told there are some y2k fixes in this version, I
haven&
The Federal Reserve Board is hosting the above workshop on 12/3/99. Would you
be interested as being listed as a resource for financial institutions, banks,
and federal agencies to call for emergency assistance during Y2K rollover? If
so please complete the attached document per example given
ing hwclock), and will almost certainly be able to figure out
john >the correct date even if the hardware clock does become confused.
john >
john >> I can't find any info on exactly what the problem is other then the
john >> boards are Y2K compliant as of bios rev X.
john
t.
It isn't. Linux only reads the hardware clock at boot (and when you tell
it to by running hwclock), and will almost certainly be able to figure out
the correct date even if the hardware clock does become confused.
> I can't find any info on exactly what the problem is other then the
was curious if anyone knew if such stuff exists. my main server, claimed
by one of the admins is not y2k compliant (the mainboard, which is an ASUS
P2B-D). I don't know the bios rev, and i dont want to reboot the machine,
i'm also 2000 miles away from the machine with the only people
Hi!
The y2k page on the debian homepage sais that util-linux v2.7.1-3 has
status "BAD?". I do not understand what I am supposed to do if I have that
version installed. How do I know if there is an updated version?
How y2k compliant is the latest debian release?
Any help a
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 19:54:07 +0200, Marcel von Ranson wrote:
> Ref.:
> wsb SPARC-Solaris 2.0b01
> To ensure y2k compliance of our hardware/software partners we would like
> to ask for information.
The Debian project does not deal with Solaris in any way. If you are
intereste
Ref.:
wsb SPARC-Solaris 2.0b01
Dear Sir/Madam,
To ensure y2k compliance of our hardware/software partners we
would like to ask for information.
Maybe you know where I can contact the author.
Thank you in advance for your support!
Yours sincerely
formation regarding Debian 1.3 and Y2K issues, see
http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980104 . More detailed information (mostly
pertaining to the current release) is available at
http://www.debian.org/y2k/
For info on Y2K issues in Open Source software in general, see
http://www.gnu.org/software/year
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to post this in. If not I
apologise,and would ask for a pointer to the right place. Thanks :)
My company has just discovered that one of our branches is running Debian
version 1.3. The company is quite happy for them to do so, but needs to
know if
rs working on KDE and GNOME out to be noodle-
> whipped in public. These products are babies, and not having them Y2K
> compliant from the get-go is a HUGE mistake and shows lack of planning on the
> part of the developers.
>
> As for the AOLamers comment - ya know, I understand anyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Anyway, what does Info and AOL have to do with each other? Or did I miss
> something?
You missed the fact the the entire post was a troll and you got sucked in.
There shouldn't be Y2K issues for most Unix (including Linux) applications,
any distro or what
These products are babies, and not having them Y2K
compliant from the get-go is a HUGE mistake and shows lack of planning on the
part of the developers.
As for the AOLamers comment - ya know, I understand anyone's opinion of not
liking AOL - but don't insult me for using it. I have my
You forgot that Gnome and KDE aren't either (for you AOLamers out there,
neither is Info) :)
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
> > I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> > If not which ve
In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
> I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> If not which version is Y2K.
Only Debian GNU/Linux is Y2K compliant (any version). All other distros
will fail at the end of this year. Please reformat your Slackware sy
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, CSR de Port-au-Prince wrote:
> I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> If not which version is Y2K.
>
> Thank you to answer me at
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thanks
> Reynold GUERRIER
Reynold:
Y2
I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
If not which version is Y2K.
Thank you to answer me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks
Reynold GUERRIER
begin: vcard
fn: CSR de Port-au-Prince
n: ;CSR de Port-au-Prince
org:
Here's a link to Debian's Y2K statement:
http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980104
Noel
*- Robert Dominguez wrote about "Y2K Compliant?"
| Hello,
|
| I am Robert Dominguez. My company uses Debian GNU Linux 1.3
| running a DNS server. The OS works fine with no bugs. My question
| is, is this version compliant with Y2K. I really don't see how it's
| directl
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Robert Dominguez wrote:
> I am Robert Dominguez. My company uses Debian GNU Linux 1.3
> running a DNS server. The OS works fine with no bugs. My question
> is, is this version compliant with Y2K. I really don't see how it's
> directly affected
Hello,
I am Robert Dominguez. My company uses Debian GNU Linux 1.3
running a DNS server. The OS works fine with no bugs. My question
is, is this version compliant with Y2K. I really don't see how it's
directly affected but I had to ask. If you have a white paper in it,
please l
n 2038 will be in museums, and perhaps in
hobbyist's basements, like antique record players and radios are today.
A sizable fraction of them don't even have hardware clocks that can handle
Y2K.
Mainframes are designed for high reliability and availability, and have
been engineered to an e
pient's address is unknown.
Subject:Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
Quoting Stephen J. Carpenter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > 2) 64 bit math is _very_ slow on a 32 bit machine. Since time_t is used
> > all o
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Michael Stone wrote:
[ snip ]
: If you're using a pentium-class machine in 2038, you deserve what you
: get. I can't believe it would be operative after that long.
I know people still sing PDP-11s -today- ! Who would have thought
they'd still be around? Their cost of own
Nah this system wont be in use past 93 forget about 99"
Not exactly. Migrating the time_t is just a matter of recompiling an
app. (Unless your app was written badly in the first place.) You can
test that migration today by running your app on a 64 bit machine like
an alpha. The y2k problems
On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Quoting Philip Thiem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Why would 32-bit apps be limited to 32 bit integers?? Didn't we have 32
> > bit avallible to us on the 286?? If not, I'm certain we were able to
> > get around it then. Also if any one
Quoting Philip Thiem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Why would 32-bit apps be limited to 32 bit integers?? Didn't we have 32
> bit avallible to us on the 286?? If not, I'm certain we were able to
> get around it then. Also if any one wants to make use of MMX registers
> there is even a 64-bit ASM MOV com
---
> From: dsb3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 1998 11:40 PM
> To: Miquel van Smoorenburg
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
>
> On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROT
-Original Message-
From: dsb3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 1998 11:40 PM
To: Miquel van Smoorenburg
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
> It's a kernel issue. On 32 bit platforms time_t will probably always be
> restricted to 32 bits, but on 64 bits systems such as the alpha time_t
> is 64 bits .. and by 2038 I expect everyone to be running at least
> a 64 bit machine.
BZZT, wron
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Wojciech Zabolotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hi
>>There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
>>applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster"
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wojciech Zabolotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi
>There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
>applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster" in the POSIX world?
>I was pretty sure that the new libc
On Sun, Sep 27, 1998 at 02:55:08PM +0200, Wojciech Zabolotny wrote:
> Hi
> There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
> applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster" in the POSIX world?
> I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64
Hi
There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster" in the POSIX world?
I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64 bit time_t,
but just yesterday, during the testing of my new application I've stat
Check out the following:
http://www.thesitefights.com/wepatrol/mil_bug.gif
Regards,
Kevin
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared
like a knight in shining armor tolead all customers out of a mire of
technological chaos neatly ignoresthe fact that it was he, who by peddling
second-rate tec
On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 01:52:38PM -0500, Stephanie A. Tomlinson wrote:
> Actually, i did check the debian web page. Unfortunately, i don't have the
> resources necessary to go on a long hunt for the information and it didn't
> seem to be readily noticeable on the site. Perhaps i'm smoking crack.
Actually, i did check the debian web page. Unfortunately, i don't have the
resources necessary to go on a long hunt for the information and it didn't
seem to be readily noticeable on the site. Perhaps i'm smoking crack.
At any rate...
On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 12:03:28PM -0500, Stephanie A. Tomlinson wrote:
> Ok, don't kill me.. i know you all are probably tired of/avoiding/irked with/
> frothing at the mouth because of the whole y2k compliance bruhaha.
>
> I just gotta find out... where might i find an official
Stephanie A. Tomlinson wrote:
>
> I just gotta find out... where might i find an official bullettin or who might
> i talk to in order to get an official statement concerning debian linux's
> y2k compliance?
>
You can always looks at the source code, you'll find
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
