Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Y2K redux

Reply
Thread Tools

Y2K redux

 
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Looks like date/time problems never go away...

This vendor <http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-5129875.html> did something
unbelievably stupid which means all current versions of their software
will start misbehaving in just a few weeks, at 10th January 2004
13:37:04 UTC. Somehow I doubt they're an isolated case, though other
products may not exhibit exactly the same problem.

And do current Linux kernels provide any 64-bit date/time functions yet
<http://maul.deepsky.com/%7Emerovech/2038.html>? MacOS had this sussed
years ago...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> Looks like date/time problems never go away...
>
> This vendor <http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-5129875.html> did
> something unbelievably stupid which means all current versions of
> their software will start misbehaving in just a few weeks, at 10th
> January 2004 13:37:04 UTC. Somehow I doubt they're an isolated case,
> though other products may not exhibit exactly the same problem.
>
> And do current Linux kernels provide any 64-bit date/time functions
> yet <http://maul.deepsky.com/%7Emerovech/2038.html>? MacOS had this
> sussed years ago...


All programs using 32-bits for date/time storage must die at some stage
(64-bit storage is not immune, but will die much, much later, of course ).
The question of when depends on what date they measure from. In Delphi,
dates are stored as a double (Floating point type), expressed as the
fraction of days elapsed since 12/30/1899.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2003
In article <bsatv1$9u7$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Nicholas Sherlock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>> Looks like date/time problems never go away...
>>
>> And do current Linux kernels provide any 64-bit date/time functions
>> yet <http://maul.deepsky.com/%7Emerovech/2038.html>? MacOS had this
>> sussed years ago...

>
>All programs using 32-bits for date/time storage must die at some stage


Here's another gripe: if UNIX/Linux folks would only use unsigned
instead of signed 32-bit integers, they could keep going until about
2138 with the current API.

>(64-bit storage is not immune, but will die much, much later, of course ).


Longer than the age of the Universe is probably good enough for most
purposes .

>The question of when depends on what date they measure from. In Delphi,
>dates are stored as a double (Floating point type), expressed as the
>fraction of days elapsed since 12/30/1899.


Hmm, not sure I like floating point for this purpose.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2003
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:23:38 +1300, Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:

> Here's another gripe: if UNIX/Linux folks would only use unsigned
> instead of signed 32-bit integers, they could keep going until about
> 2138 with the current API.


Yes, but switching from signed to unsigned only puts the problem off for
100 years.

Going to 64 bit pretty much puts it past the heat death of the Sun.

As for why 32 bit originally? In 1970 ram was $1E9/Mb.

(Which is also why old *nix commands are so few letters)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Uncle StoatWarbler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In 1970 ram was $1E9/Mb.
>
>(Which is also why old *nix commands are so few letters)


And yet even new *nix commands still use so few letters...
 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>>In 1970 ram was $1E9/Mb.
>>(Which is also why old *nix commands are so few letters)


> And yet even new *nix commands still use so few letters...


Thats because we are now lazy as opposed to efficient.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lennier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:53:03 +1300, T.N.O. wrote:

>> And yet even new *nix commands still use so few letters...

>
> Thats because we are now lazy as opposed to efficient.


Have you noticed how application switches are starting to get longer and
longer?

Lennier

 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
Lennier wrote:
>>>And yet even new *nix commands still use so few letters...


>>Thats because we are now lazy as opposed to efficient.


> Have you noticed how application switches are starting to get longer and
> longer?


only because we like to have more choice now...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:49:05 +1300, Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:

>>In 1970 ram was $1E9/Mb.
>>
>>(Which is also why old *nix commands are so few letters)

>
> And yet even new *nix commands still use so few letters...


Yes, traditions die hard,


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
In article <pan.2003.12.27.09.28.47.80941@TRACKER>,
Lennier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:53:03 +1300, T.N.O. wrote:
>
>>> And yet even new *nix commands still use so few letters...

>>
>> Thats because we are now lazy as opposed to efficient.

>
>Have you noticed how application switches are starting to get longer and
>longer?


You mean those double-dash ones? And all those apps offering both
single-dash and double-dash switches?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAQ 4.18 Does Perl have a Year 2000 or 2038 problem? Is Perl Y2K compliant? PerlFAQ Server Perl Misc 0 01-06-2011 11:00 AM
Remembering Y2K Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 2 12-31-2009 10:57 AM
Y2K problem with script? none@of.your.biz.nes Javascript 4 09-30-2005 10:43 PM
Y2K? Never heard of it... McKirahan Javascript 7 12-30-2004 04:42 PM
Can't talk directly to Cisco 1720 (redux) Rossz Cisco 0 08-20-2004 07:09 PM



Advertisments