Well, I think programmers should do a "man localtime" =P
quote from localtime man page:
tm_year
The number of years since 1900.
> My OLD server stats was 4 digit year and it to had the same problem on
> January 1, 19100
> Programmers like these should be sued along with MS
My OLD server stats was 4 digit year and it to had the same problem on
January 1, 19100
Programmers like these should be sued along with MS for charging to fix
the 3000 bugs in win95
-
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 21:41:13 -0700 (MST)
Brian Schnei
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Brian Schneider wrote:
> I just noticed something strange. On the web counter I use on my
> system, it states the date as 01-08-100. No real issue, just sort
> of interesting.
I'll wager said script is written in perl. Perl measures the year as
the number of years since 1900
I just noticed something strange. On the web counter I use on my system,
it states the date as 01-08-100. No real issue, just sort of interesting.
--
In the world of PC's. Ken Griffy Jr. is still the best thing in NW Wash
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Bill Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Marcel de Reuver wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since 1 Jan 2000 on a RedHat 5.1 system hwclock aborts with the
> > following error:
> >
> > mktime() failed unexpectedly (rc -1). Aborting.
> >
>
> I have seen this on all my 5.x boxes. I
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 12:05:53 -0500, hai scritto:
>Don't have the URL right in front of me, but if you visit freshmeat and
>search there for y2kwa22 you'll find it (that's where I found it).
>
Thanks, I'm downloading it right now.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 04:59:56PM +0100, Giulio Orsero wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:47:46 -0600 (CST), hai scritto:
>
> >> Since 1 Jan 2000 on a RedHat 5.1 system hwclock aborts with the
> >> following error:
>
> 1 of them still had the problem; its bios was reset to 2094 at every
> boot. I
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:47:46 -0600 (CST), hai scritto:
>> Since 1 Jan 2000 on a RedHat 5.1 system hwclock aborts with the
>> following error:
I had this with 3 boxes (not redhat, but caldera 1.3). They were on when
the 2000 rollover occurred, and their date/time was ok.
Nevertheles I couldn't use
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Marcel de Reuver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since 1 Jan 2000 on a RedHat 5.1 system hwclock aborts with the
> following error:
>
> mktime() failed unexpectedly (rc -1). Aborting.
>
I have seen this on all my 5.x boxes. I would guess it is a problem in
hwclock, most likely it is not
Hi,
Since 1 Jan 2000 on a RedHat 5.1 system hwclock aborts with the
following error:
mktime() failed unexpectedly (rc -1). Aborting.
Is this hard- or software related?
Regards,
Marcel de Reuver
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
"Thomas Ribbrock \(Design/DEG\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Ok, I've found a bit more about this:
>
>According to Red Hat's own Y2K pages
>(http://www.redhat.com/legal/y2k_statement.html) or more specifically, the
>report done for Red Hat by "The Software Laboratory" (never heard of
>them before - repo
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 10:51:03AM +, Thomas Ribbrock Design/DEG" wrote:
> Ok, I've found a bit more about this:
>
> According to Red Hat's own Y2K pages
> (http://www.redhat.com/legal/y2k_statement.html) or more specifically, the
> report done for Red Hat by "The Software Laboratory" (never
Ok, I've found a bit more about this:
According to Red Hat's own Y2K pages
(http://www.redhat.com/legal/y2k_statement.html) or more specifically, the
report done for Red Hat by "The Software Laboratory" (never heard of
them before - report URL: http://www.redhat.com/legal/test_report.pdf)
both Re
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:37:01PM -0700, Eric Sisler wrote:
[...]
> I'd like to hear a more definite answer on this one.
Me too...
> I'm not planning on
> upgrading my 5.2 servers running glibc-2.0.7-29 before January (I have
> enough to do with these *(#@&!! client PC's. Are there problems
>> > in bind, two more in proftpd]), not Y2K save (they're still using glibc
>> > 2.0, which has a known Y2K bug), buggy, and nonstandard (why did they
>> [...]
>>
>> Wait a minute - RHL 5.2 is using glibc 2.0 as well, isn't it? Why has
>> ther
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Thomas Ribbrock (Design/DEG) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 05:40:58PM +0100, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> [...]
> > in bind, two more in proftpd]), not Y2K save (they're still using glibc
> > 2.0, which has a known Y2K bug), buggy, and no
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 05:40:58PM +0100, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
[...]
> in bind, two more in proftpd]), not Y2K save (they're still using glibc
> 2.0, which has a known Y2K bug), buggy, and nonstandard (why did they
[...]
Wait a minute - RHL 5.2 is using glibc 2.0 as well, is
17 matches
Mail list logo
