Microsoft Invents The Y2K10 Bug
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
EMB
> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
after 497 days.
Glass houses, stones and all that stuff.
Allistar
> On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
>
> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
> after 497 days.
On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.
> Glass houses, stones and all that stuff.
--
A.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
>
> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
> after 497 days.
root@theon:~ # ssh mink uptime
12:03am up 1150 days 4:32, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
^^^^^^^^^
EMB
> EMB wrote:
>> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
>> after 497 days.
>
> On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.
Of which there are a LOT around - including several hundred in a penguin
colony in which I have a professional interest.
Richard
> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
Decade changes next year
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Decade changes next year
Not according to the usual convention.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Yet your “professional” interest doesn’t extend to keeping them up-to-date.
Matty F
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
Lack of testing.
I tested my date subroutines for every day in thousands of years by
calling them with consecutive day numbers (and dates) and checking
that the answers were still one day apart.
Gordon
Nope Ms Windows does not do 0 for the first device.
I like to use 0, meaning the first in a conversation. That gets some brains
working. Under the radar for the rest
Gordon
> EMB wrote:
>
>> On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
>>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
>>
>> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
>> after 497 days.
>
> On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.
Let it go. The kernel has moved on.
Now tell us all about the 2038 problem Linux faces
Richard
What convention is that?
First decade was 1-10, second 11-20, keep going and its 2001-2010, then
2011-2020.
Same discussion happened at the incorrect change of millenium 10 years
ago...
Allistar
> On 2010-01-06, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> EMB wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
>>>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
>>>
>>> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
>>> after 497 days.
>>
>> On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.
>
> Let it go. The kernel has moved on.
Indeed it has, which is why I made my post.
> Now tell us all about the 2038 problem Linux faces
Are you confusing me with some other poster?
--
A.
EMB
It extends to recommending that something be done, however it does not
extend to having the ability to authorise something being done. There
are also issues involving certification of the whole OS and app package,
and I understand nothing newer has been certified to the satisfaction of
the auditors.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> First decade was 1-10 ...
There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t introduced until
1582.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Now tell us all about the 2038 problem Linux faces
What 2038 problem?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
You’re talking about a kernel which was obsoleted 6 years ago.
Stephen Worthington
But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
0. So decades, centuries and millennia actually start at 1, not 0.
Matty F
<step...@jsw12.gen34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>
> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >> First decade was 1-10 ...
>
> >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t introduced until
> >1582.
>
> But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
> renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
> 0. So decades, centuries and millennia actually start at 1, not 0.
But AD and BC refer to the birth of Jesus, who was age 4 (at least) in
1AD. King Herod was the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and
Herod died in 4BC. So we may as well say the millennium started in the
year 0. Just because some moron got it wrong a couple of thousand
years ago doesn't meran we have to keep it that way.
Stephen Worthington
Wrong, AD and BC are not the designations used for calendars any more.
The correct usage is CE = Common Era and BCE = Before the Common Era.
The birth date or not of Jesus Christ is completely irrelevant to the
calendar system, as it is not based on his supposed birth date any
more (or even on his existence or not). The current definition of how
the calendar system works says that there is 1 BCE and 1 CE and no
year 0 in between. So, by definition, there is no year 0. There is
nothing clearer than that - year 0 does not exist, by definition.
Matty F
Why should we follow a definition decided by morons?
When measuring time it is necessary to starting timing from zero.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
> renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
> 0.
That convention was from the days when Europeans didn’t understand the
concept of 0. I would hope they’ve made some progress since then...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
b643-741...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Matty F wrote:
> But AD and BC refer to the birth of Jesus, who was age 4 (at least) in
> 1AD.
Bringing in a mythical figure of questionable historicity doesn’t really
help the argument.
> King Herod was the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and
> Herod died in 4BC.
I gather there was more than one king named “Herod”.
John Little
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> That convention was from the days when Europeans didn’t understand the
> concept of 0. I would hope they’ve made some progress since then...
That's a red herring, irrelevant. Say you've got a period of three
years, you don't call them year 0, 1 and 2, no, you call the first
year "year 1". The year 2010 is the 2010th year.
Ignoring parole, if someone is sent to jail for 10 years, do you let
them out at the beginning of the tenth year, or the end?
Regards, John
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
b092-9e3...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, John Little wrote:
> On Jan 9, 11:40 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> That convention was from the days when Europeans didn’t understand the
>> concept of 0. I would hope they’ve made some progress since then...
>
> That's a red herring, irrelevant. Say you've got a period of three
> years, you don't call them year 0, 1 and 2, no, you call the first
> year "year 1". The year 2010 is the 2010th year.
I guess they haven’t.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
Even harder to believe that there seems to be a bloody epidemic
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/09/symantec_endpoint_manager_bug/>.
Did they think Y2K was supposed to be the start of a tradition?