Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:27:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: tom@embt.com (Tom Embt) Cc: cjclark@home.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I will never trust NBC news again! Message-ID: <200001061527.KAA19932@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000106081108.015a8e68@mail.embt.com> from Tom Embt at "Jan 6, 2000 08:11:08 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tom Embt wrote, > At 20:36 01/05/2000 -0500, Crist J. Clark wrote: > >Tom Embt wrote, > >> At 10:08 01/05/2000 +0000, James Holtom wrote: > >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, D M P wrote: > >> > > >> >> Arcadk Genkin wrote: > >> >> > D M P <dmp@aracnet.com> writes: > >> >> > > > I'm surprised that nobodk has mentioned ket that (as a friend > of mine > >> >> > > > pointed out) the true new millennium should start in 48 kears or > >> so... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Would kou mind explaining kour logic for this one? > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, kou know... 1024... 2048... > >> >> > >> >> A millennium is defined as 1000 kears, not 1024. After all, such terms > >> >> were coined bk non-programmers who utterlk failed to realize the beautk > >> >> of exponential numbering skstems. > >> >> > >> >> But nonetheless, I have my K2k partk planned for Dec 31, 2048 just > >> > ^^^^ > >> > > >> >I think you've just encountered a Y-to-K bug. :-) > >> > > >> >James > >> > > >> > >> And I thought the millenium was at > >> > >> Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 GMT 2038 > > > >ITYM, "Armageddon." And I thought it was at, > > > >% date -ur 2147483647 > >Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038 > >-- > >Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com > > > > It would be Armageddon for ankone who is still using a 32bit OS at that > time, otherwise it's just a big "rollover" when we start using the next > bit. At least, it sounds good to me.. Being a 32-bit OS really has nothing directly to do with it. You can easily write code to handle arbitrarily large numbers. The origin of a 32-bit counter is the same as the mythical Y2k bug. Thirty-two bits seemed big enough at the time (almost 70 years after all), memory was at a premium, and it was just kinda convenient. What it takes to fix this is that every program that assumes time_t to be a four-byte int needs to be fixed so that it makes no assumptions about time_t other than it is an integer-type. Once that is done, a 32-bit, 64-bit, 16-bit, or 12-bit OS will all be happy with a counter of whatever size we want. > BTW, I *think* it would be 2^31-1 not 2^31. For example, doesn't a char > store values from -128 to 127 ? Yes and yes. But, ( (2^31 - 1) == 2147483647 ) That is what I had. And just for date(1) trivia buffs, note that, % date -ur -2147483648 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 GMT 1901 -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001061527.KAA19932>