Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:09:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tell the world about Year 2000 Compliance Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971120115503.17318Q-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <19971120092740.VD37373@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, J Wunsch wrote: > As Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > Yes, several systems at Walnut Creek CDROM were set 20-30 years ahead > > and used for several months in that mode before the claim was made. > > :-) > > Albeit, date(1) should be taught about accepting a century. (I read > in the man page that it does some guesswork, but i think people might > get used to explicitly spell the century around the Y2K turnover.) I think date is pretty likely to be a safe bet, although I haven't checked in a big way, (I set my computer to 2001 for a couple of days without problems) I'd be more concerned about applications that just print the date out wrong. It's more a worry of if everything works consistently. i.e. date outputs in the _same format_ (and programs still work). It all comes dow eto the level of trust in the vendor I guess, and we all have to just beleive Jordan's statement that it's tested (I do). Personally though I'll be testing the applications I use a bit more rigourously now that it seems so many people aren't entirely sure about it. I've no desire to be branded a Unix bighead who then gets it all wrong! Steve -- Steve Roome - Vision Interactive Ltd. Tel:+44(0)117 9730597 Home:+44(0)976 241342 WWW: http://dylan.visint.co.uk/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971120115503.17318Q-100000>