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's been discussed on this group.
"Darin Johnson" 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
> 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,
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 store the century as two
>> d
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.
>
> The biggest pro
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 cloc
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<--->8
Richard Shep
11 matches
Mail list logo
