Re: tlug: Y2K

[Yong-Ming Hua <yhua@example.com>]

Dear Fredriksson,

    Thanks very much for your comment and opinion about Y2K
prob. 
>As for the PC hardware it is not Y2k-safe in the sense that there
>are only 2 digits in the CMOS-clock for year. This is not a problem
>for Linux (or any other OS I have tested) since any year value smaller
>than 70 is assumed to mean 2000-2070 and any year greater than 70 is
>assumed to mean 1971-1999. Works like a charm until most of us
>are dead or at least since long retired.

   Yup, most of us will be dead then.... hahahha 

   I am kinda reliiiiiiiieved. Honestly. Though I did find my
bad scripts, or even Java scripts...which have 19+....I have
changed them...Looks like that is it!!! good. I think I can
go into O Brave New World, for better of course. Thanks.

Yong-Ming

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:39:13 +0100 
        Fredric.Fredriksson@example.com wrote:
>The linux kernel as such is Y2k-safe. When I studied the Y2k problem
>and Linux and our app (runs on Linux) I found that the major, and I
>maybe even the only, source of Y2k related problems in Linux and C/C++
>base applications on Linux is the tm struct and specifically the
>tm.tm_year member of the struct. 
>tm.tm_year contains number of years since 1900 and it is tempting
>to write code like:
>   printf("Year: %2.2d",tm.tm_year); // Year w. 2 digits
>or even:
>   printf("Year: 19%2.2d",tm.tm_year); // Year w. 4 digits
>(The correct way would of course be to add 1900 to tm.tm_year and
> then display the value).
>I have grepped the Linux kernel and most common apps for tm_year and
>found no bugs. I believe that there used to be a bug in older versions
>of the kernel or some small app like ls but that has been fixed since
>long. 
>The rest is usually not a problem since it is very natural to use
>time_t for time/date representation in Linux/Unix systems.
>
>As for the PC hardware it is not Y2k-safe in the sense that there
>are only 2 digits in the CMOS-clock for year. This is not a problem
>for Linux (or any other OS I have tested) since any year value smaller
>than 70 is assumed to mean 2000-2070 and any year greater than 70 is
>assumed to mean 1971-1999. Works like a charm until most of us
>are dead or at least since long retired.
>The problem with the PC hardware might be the BIOS that will not
>allow to set the time to a year later than 1999, but why would you
>need the BIOS to do that?
>
>I may be overconfident but I do not fear the Y2k problem and I am
>responsible for a product that use Linux as OS. We have passed all
>Y2k test made by us and by our customers with flying colors.
>
>/Fredric

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/Yong-Ming Hua                                                         _/
_/Department of English Literature: Faculty of Arts: Tamagawa University_/
_/E-mail: yhua@example.com                                _/
_/Phone:Japan-042-739-8132(office)   Fax:Japan-042-739-8847(office)     _/
_/URL:http://www.kelvin.lit.tamagawa.ac.jp                              _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/Private Phone: Jpn-(0)3-3485-0171/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: December 17 (Fri), 20:00 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Technical Meeting: January 14 (Fri) 19:00
* Topic: "glibc - current status and future developments"
* Guest Speaker: Ulrich Drepper (Cygnus Solutions)
* Place: Oracle Japan HQ 12F Seminar Room (New Otani Garden Court)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp        Sponsor: Global Online Japan