Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:36:29 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tell the world about Year 2000 Compliance Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971119152857.8550A-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <199711191807.LAA05380@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Nate Williams wrote: > > Finally, what's being done (if any?) to insure that FreeBSD _IS_ and > > _REMAINS_ Year 2000 compliant... e.g. New packages/ports etc. > > The non-use of Cobol. :) I was a little alarmed to find the "2000 compliant" banner. On what basis is the claim made other than the non-use of Cobol? Some time back I grepped the source tree and found a number of places where two digit dates were having 1900 blindly added to them--the internal representation was okay, but stored representations may have problems. These may not be serious problems and they may not be widespread, but I find it a little disturbing how frequently Unixheads brush aside the problem as something that only affects other systems. That sort of arrogance is bound to backfire at some point. Has anyone actually set their system clock forward and done extensive testing? -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971119152857.8550A-100000>