On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:37:17 +0100, Paul O'Malley <ompaul at eircom.net>
> Richard Eibrand wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> Just read this article
>>http://us.rediff.com/money/2005/may/06linux.htm, and was wondering
>> what peoples thoughts are with regards this problem. Some more scare
>>>> Here is a snippet to get a gist,
>>> In the spirit of not agreeing with everything that is said:
> I do not concur that the article is FUD - it is a little alarmist,
> however I have five questions for you:
Paul, just to let you know that I agree with you. Not entirely fud, and
alarmist, but alarmist in a niggly little sense, as in being alarmed to
run out of toilet paper... But not so alarmed as to buy 5 tons of it to
never run out of it entirely!
Saying that, I'll have a go at answering your questions
> (A) how much of todays technology will be use in 2038?
> less than 10% I would guess
I would probably say that a lower percentage of today's technology will be
around then, just seeing the rate of technological developments in the
past ten years. In essence very little of will be around
> (B) of that fictional 10% how much will actually have time_t in it?
> less than the 10%
Yep, I agree with you there also.
> (C) for any unit or device in that small grouping where time is
> measured, how often is it a function of day and date that exists there?
> Mostly time is a matter of seconds - so it is not still much of an issue
Again, I agree.
> (D) do you think that manafacutrers are not aware of this?
> I remember getting a video recorder in spring 1992 and it was able to
> run to do dates up to 2050 it is has already gone to the great recycling
> home in the sky
I am sure they are aware of this, and that measures are already in place
to counteract the forecasted potential ill effects, and if not yet, that
there will soon be measures in place to deal with this. That is my
opinion, when I wrote the initial post, my idea was just to see if people
has similar thoughts to my own on this, essentially that there is rather
little to be worried about.
> (E) if you still think that the article is fud read this bit:
> "How can the problem be sorted? Modern Linux programs could use 64-bit
> or longer time_t data storage to overcome the problem. As for the
> existing systems, the way the C language stores time_t data could be
> changed and then all the programs could be recompiled. All this is
> easier said than done."
I never actually stated that the article was fud, per say, because tbh, I
never knew the true meaning of actual word, I had a different
interpretation of that word! Thanks to wikipedia though
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD), I now know that my question actually
did ask whether this article was fud. You learn something new everyday...
Also learnt what Wintendo was all about
> When 64bit is normal there will be people who will want to use 64bit
> apps on 32bit machines - so a patch will be made for the kernel.
>> So what falls from all of this is as follows, in the rare case where the
> technology still exists and is operational in 33 years it may break in
> several ways, interesting or not someone will deal with it.
As I agreed with you earlier, the amount of time and technological
advances that will happen between now and then, will and should override
any such flaws in the current technological base we use on a day to day
Thanks for your thoughts!
http://eibrand.netrichard at eibrand.net
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!