Oh, gross. I just looked at mirror.pl:
if( $year < 70 ){
$year += 2000;
}
else {
$year += 1900;
}
But where exactly is the problem?
The "70" in the if statement looks like it is based on the Unix epoch's
sta
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 10:12:52 +0100, John Lines wrote:
> I am having a very hard time trying to get a Debian system installed due
> to it not being year 2000 compliant. (as compared to Redhat
> (http://www.redhat.com/corp/legal_statement.html#y2k) - whose statement is
> actually
Wait a while. In six months no-one will care.
According to http://www.debian.org/y2k/ about half the packages in the base
Debian system are not known to be Year 2000 compliant. While I realise that
the probably are, I am having a very hard time trying to get a Debian
system installed due to it not being year 2000 compliant. (as compared to
n their own way
-Steve
> Alex
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Rick Fadler wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm assuming with all the year 2000 compliance hype that there
> > must be a document somewhere describing the year 2000 issues
> > related t
u, 23 Jul 1998, Rick Fadler wrote:
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Rick Fadler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Year 2000 compliance
> Resent-Date: 23 Jul 1998 17:22:49 -
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.or
On Sat, Jul 25, 1998 at 09:17:51PM -0700, Alexander wrote:
> Any and all UNIX systems are fully Y2K compliant, as long as the hardware
I think this statement is naive. Although the kernel may represent
all time values as time_t, you cannot guarantee that all applications
do, and since there are ra
o: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Year 2000 compliance
> Resent-Date: 23 Jul 1998 18:04:54 -
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> *-Rick Fadler (23 Jul)
> |
> | Does anyone have any
*-Rick Fadler (23 Jul)
|
| Does anyone have any information on this?
|
http://www.debian.org/news#19980104
--
Brian
Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubsc
Hi,
I'm assuming with all the year 2000 compliance hype that there
must be a document somewhere describing the year 2000 issues
related to specific Debian releases of linux.
Specifically, we have built an embedded system using Debian
version 1.3. Being an embedded system, we've strippe
Arran,
Although linux may be "year 2000 safe," You also must assure that all
application programs are also clean. It much more likely that an
application program will will have the "fatal" hidden flaw that will
There is a year-2000 problem we know of that is connected to your PC's
BIOS and clock chip. The BIOS and clock chip of many systems store a
two-digit year. This is a separate issue from the Linux kernel clock,
which is all software. Linux uses a program to read the hardware clock
into the sof
Hi all,
Is there anyone out there can give me any information regarding linux
or more specifically debian in relation to the Y2k problem?
We run a couple of debian boxes in production and my manager has been
asked to do an audit on how complient these machines are as far as
year 2000.
Any
Something about Debian GNU/Linux being year-2000-ready, for those
interested.
--
Emilio C. Lopes <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: Duane Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.year-2000
Subject: Re: GNU s
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Before 100 people jump to correct me, yes, time_t overflows after
> Tuesday, January 19, 03:14:07 2038. Fixing this requires that time_t by
> typedefed as a 64-bit quantity and then programs using it must be
> recompiled. One would hope that the world can
Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> Groff-1.10 had a couple of problems in some of the macro packages.
> [...]
> (This may all be corrected in 1.3.1 -- I don't have access to a
> 1.3.1 system now to check. I know it's been reported to the groff
> maintainer, but I haven't checked whether the groff-1.11 fix
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Richard L Shepherd wrote:
> Not sure if this has been thrashed out before:
>
> Is Debian (or Linux in general) year 2000 *safe*? I'm not even sure what
> that means precisely, but I'm responsible for finding out round here and
> wondered if it'
mpiled. One would hope that the world can find something better
-> > than POSIX, C, and Unix by 2038.
->
-> Ok, the worst thing about the year 2000 problem, is that so few people
-> understand it, yet think they do! People panic about things that
-> probably won't break (Lin
> than POSIX, C, and Unix by 2038.
Ok, the worst thing about the year 2000 problem, is that so few people
understand it, yet think they do! People panic about things that
probably won't break (Linux and utilities), yet ignore things that
are more likely to break (user applications and da
Before 100 people jump to correct me, yes, time_t overflows after
Tuesday, January 19, 03:14:07 2038. Fixing this requires that time_t by
typedefed as a 64-bit quantity and then programs using it must be
recompiled. One would hope that the world can find something better
than POSIX, C, and Unix by
There is some dispute over whether it's 2038 or later. In any case, one
only need define time_t to be 64 bits and it will last until the
heat-death of the universe.
Bruce
--
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debi
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:51:07 +1000 Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 21, 1997 at 08:15:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> I ran my system with the date in the year 2000 for a few weeks. I could not
>> find any problems. Unix was never so dumb as to sto
On Tue, Oct 21, 1997 at 08:15:00PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I ran my system with the date in the year 2000 for a few weeks. I could not
> find any problems. Unix was never so dumb as to store the century as two
> digits. Richard Stallman and FSF have been testing this, too.
>
&
I ran my system with the date in the year 2000 for a few weeks. I could not
find any problems. Unix was never so dumb as to store the century as two
digits. Richard Stallman and FSF have been testing this, too.
The biggest problem that may happen has to do with the motherboard BIOS
and the PC
Not sure if this has been thrashed out before:
Is Debian (or Linux in general) year 2000 *safe*? I'm not even sure what
that means precisely, but I'm responsible for finding out round here and
wondered if it's been discussed on this group.
8<---
The Year 2000 problem has been discussed extensively, but when anyone asks
about Linux the answer is always 'The kernel is OK up till 2038, other
than that it is an application problem'
It seems to me that the Debian distribution, by breaking up the applications
into a large number of
Thomas Baetzler wrote:
> I suppose this would work the same way as setting up any other remote
> printer: by creating a set of two spools. SDee the details in the
> LPR-HOWTO.
Where is the lpr howto? I don't see it in the debian howto package.
--
see shy jo
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILIN
Ralph Winslow wrote:
>
> Syd Alsobrook wrote:
> >
> > Just a curious question, does anyone know if linux in general and
> Debian in
> > particular are year 2000 compliant?
>
> We're OK until 2017 (and since I'll surely have a 64-bit system by
> then
Syd Alsobrook wrote:
>
> Just a curious question, does anyone know if linux in general and Debian in
> particular are year 2000 compliant?
We're OK until 2017 (and since I'll surely have a 64-bit system by then,
'til hell freezes over) for 32-bit systems.
>
> It wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Baetzler) writes:
> James C. Carr wrote:
> : As far as I've been told, though I haven't actually tried it,
> :the Linux kernel functions up to the year 2037. How that works, I'm
> :not entirely sure...
>
> The Unix timestamp is represented as time_t, which is usuall
James C. Carr wrote:
: As far as I've been told, though I haven't actually tried it,
:the Linux kernel functions up to the year 2037. How that works, I'm
:not entirely sure...
The Unix timestamp is represented as time_t, which is usually a signed
long value. A date is represented a the numb
As far as I've been told, though I haven't actually tried it,
the Linux kernel functions up to the year 2037. How that works, I'm
not entirely sure...
Anyhow, I've got a question of my own: Has anyone successfully
gotten a filter to use gs on a .ps file AND send it to a networked
Just a curious question, does anyone know if linux in general and Debian in
particular are year 2000 compliant?
It would be a shame if we came down to the wire and had forgotten something
Syd
http://www.uc.edu/~alsobrsp
"How do you know you're having fun
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Sam Ockman wrote:
> Message from Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > If you can do so, please try running your system with the date in the year
> > 2000 for a while. Richard Stallman asked if we had tested that GNU software
> > is free of year-2000
Message from Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> If you can do so, please try running your system with the date in the year
> 2000 for a while. Richard Stallman asked if we had tested that GNU software
> is free of year-2000 problems, and I think it's a good idea. Fortunately
>
Did anyone test _emacs_ for year-2000 problems?
Thanks
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> > If you can do so, please try running your system with the date in the year
> > 2000 for a while. Richard Stallman asked if we had tested that GNU software
> > is free of year-2000 problems, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> If you can do so, please try running your system with the date in the year
> 2000 for a while. Richard Stallman asked if we had tested that GNU software
> is free of year-2000 problems, and I think it's a good idea. Fortunately
> we do
If you can do so, please try running your system with the date in the year
2000 for a while. Richard Stallman asked if we had tested that GNU software
is free of year-2000 problems, and I think it's a good idea. Fortunately
we don't have too many COBOL programs :-) .
To do this, you&#
39 matches
Mail list logo
