Ken Yap wrote:
> >No!
> >Even my ancient Cyrix 686 166+ happily clicked over to 1/1/2000. The only
> >problem I have heard of is a company in the US whose system crashed when
> >they tested it a couple of days before the new year. Maybe everyone took
> >sufficient measures ahead of time.
>
> A Cyrix is hardly ancient. And it's not the processor that matters but
> the RTC. Linux, like Unices, doesn't have a Y2K problem in the kernel,
> but a Y2038 problem, which will be fixed as time_t is becoming a 64
> bit integer (it already is in glibc). So leaving your computer on is
> no test. Turning it on again after NY is, because the system time gets
> loaded from the RTC. I think the Linux hardware clock utilities know
> how to deal with RTCs that wrap around to 1980.
1. I also closed my system down, turned it off and restarted about 12 hours
later. All is well - the hardware handled the changeover.
2. When we see 700 and 733 MHz 32 bit processors around with the expectation
of the 64 bit Merced and Mckinley (sp?) in the very near future running at
up to 1.5 GHz, 166 MHz is very slow and "ancient" technology - most newer
games will not run on such ancient technology (Try Quake III for instance).
3. Will 2038 really be a problem? Most Linux users update their systems at
least once every 20 or so years I expect ;o}
Stay well and happy
Heracles
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
