🚀 go-pugleaf

Intersting to know that you are addressing only the gentlemen in the crowed.
For a minute I thought that we are approaching the Twenty First Century!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mbayer@my-dejanews.com [SMTP:mbayer@my-dejanews.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 15:17
> To:   CIPS-L@hermes.csd.unb.ca
> Subject:      Re: MOST Y2K FIXES WILL ONLY LAST A GENERATION
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I am the Y2k Practice Director for Client/Server Management a Toronto
> Based
> Conslulting Company with many clients who have done this remediation.  In
> our
> investigations we have learned that the OS may have problems if they are
> not
> fixed.
>
> The current UNIX operating systems does not go past 2038. MVS may have
> some
> problems in 204xx the number. The statements about databases is suspect
> because it depends on the database management systems.  If POSIX time
> calls
> are used it may require a significant effort.  Other DBMS can range out to
> the Year 3000 and beyond.
>
> The issue about windowing is only true if a fixed windowing technique was
> used. Most companies used a sliding windowing technique which allows  the
> window to slide from a 50/50 to a 40 / 60 window.
>
> Mike Bayer
>
> In article <7creav$fs3$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>   roberson@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
> > In article <19990318.084428.24081@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
> > James Crooks  <jcrooks@vse.ca> wrote:
> > :Is this article's statement true for most Canadian Y2K remediation
> > :efforts?
> >
> > |From: "Mark Gibbs" <mgibbs@gibbs.com>
> > |MOST Y2K FIXES WILL ONLY LAST A GENERATION
> >
> > |The fix used to patch 80% of the worlds' computers to avert a Y2K
> crisis
> > |is
> > |actually only a short-term remedy called "windowing."
> >
> > |patch is a trick that forces software to "guess" whether dates fall in
> > |the
> > |1900s or the 2000s;  typically, lower numbers (perhaps up to 30) will
> > |belong
> > |to the new century, whereas higher numbers (such as 87) will belong to
> > |the
> > |old century.
> >
> > While it is true that "windowing" has been used in a number of fixes, I
> > would point out that in 2038 there will be another big date crisis:  in
> > that year, UNIX and NT and all POSIX compliant systems run out of
> > time.
> >
> > The ANSI C time_t is defined to be an "arithmetic type" [so it cannot
> > be a structure], and POSIX defines time() to return time_t and requires
> > that it be the number of seconds since the Epoch, with the Epoch
> > defined as starting Jan 1 1970 UTC. There is no explicit requirement
> > that time_t be signed but it is in practice. As a signed value the
> > counter will overflow in 2038. (I've heard that Windows 95 runs out in
> > 2035 for some reason.) On many 32 bit machines, a 32 bit long *is* the
> > biggest "arithmetic type" available, so there isn't anywhere to expand
> > to without breaking the standards. And there will always be legacy code
> /
> > systems of course.
> >
> > There simply isn't any defined way at present to write POSIX compliant
> > code that is certain to survive the end of the Epoch -- there is no
> > time64() call etc. Filesystems will need to be converted too, as 32 bit
> > timestamps are what are stored on Unix filesystems -- imagine what a
> mess
> > that's going to be!!
> >
>
> Michael Bayer
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own