On 3/9/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone know what the facts are here?
>
1900 was not a leap year....
Now, I *know* you're way smart enough to understand what I was
asking there, and "Was 1900 a leap year?" was obviously not it. I can
only assume you're being obtuse on purpose. Should I ask why, or
should we just move on to the comparison-to-radical-groups phase of
Degenerative Online Discussion Syndrome?
So anything else was and is a bug ...
So is the C standard library's definition of "tm_year" to be the
number of years since 1900 (a retcon to work around a Y2K bug that was
written into the system from the beginning). So is "creat()" (it
should be spelled "create", regardless of what the PDP linker they
were using could handle). So is the fact that "gets()" has no
facility to identify the size of the buffer it writes to. So is about
half of the X Window System.
Yet we don't throw this stuff out because, what-do-you-know,
compatibility with existing stuff is sometimes important.
... because it was a stupid bug, the bug fix should be freely available.
Well, again, reading the response that got posted to the list, the
"bug compatibility" mode described is an optional mode, and the "fix",
to use your term, is also defined in the proposed standard -- namely,
not using said optional compatibility mode.
Of course, maybe that claim is wrong. Hence my desire for facts.
But it appears we're not interested in facts unless they reflect
poorly on Microsoft. Victory at any price, I guess.
I normally detest propaganda, even propaganda whose nominal cause I
agree with. I suffered a lapse of judgment in this situation. As a
result, it appears I'm once again being taught the lesson as to why I
detest propaganda.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
