Re: OFF TOPIC: Y2K problems with news reader (was Re: Armaggedon)

[Bob Scheurle <scheurle@z-eclipse-z.net>]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 14:46:34 GMT, /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) wrote:
>One of the bug fixes for y2k is to set an arbitrary year that all two
>digit years AFTER that date are 1900 and all two digit years BEFORE
>that date are 2000.  Which means another upgrade before the arbitrary
>year chosen is reached.  Silly.  But then most have chosen 2036 or
>beyond as their arbitrary year, and we will all need new operating
>systems by then anyhow.

Is this the 2036 UNIX problem I've heard about?

I believe MS-DOS will work up to 2108.

It's interesting that all the Y2k bugs on the 'Net seem to be UNIX
systems that insist the year is 19100.  I've lost count of how many times
I've seen 19100 (or something like 1/1/100).  I hope the UNIX bigots have
noticed that Windows problems are few and far between.

-- 
Bob Scheurle                      | "I say, either agree with me or
scheurle@z-eclipse-z.net          |  take a hike!  I'm right, period!
rscheurl@z-avionics-z.itt.com     |  End of discussion!"
http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle  |  -- Calvin (not Hobbes)