Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:24:51 -0400 From: "11.10.9" <Cant.Spam@from.net> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Y2K and the Epoch Clock Message-ID: <355315B3.859FE9CF@from.net>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
================================================== TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE >>>> mailto::tomeij@iname.com ================================================== Gentlemen: While reading your Y2K compliance statement, you noted that Unix would likely expand to a 64 bit "or longer" bit counter for the time component from the current 32bit "unix epoch" based system. My I put in a vote for a 96 bit counter as, at least the FreeBSD, standard? My thinking on this is that up to now, most OS development has been "commercial" in orientation. The Y2K issue is, I think, clearly demonstrating the shortcomings of that mentality. A 96 bit clock represents the ability to document time in "nanoseconds" from the theoretical "big bang" to the ( also theoretical ) big crunch. It clearly isn't going to be a big issue with current technology to use this as a standard within at least FreeBSD. At least in this area, a 96bit clock might have some "universal" appeal. Just some thoughts on this issue. Joe Tomei ================================================== TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE >>>> mailto::tomeij@iname.com ================================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?355315B3.859FE9CF>