Bernie wrote:
>
> Casper wrote:
> >This is a known problem that affects most computer system including all
> >Unices. A solution is to go 64 bit, something that is expected to happen
> >in the next decade. Older machines will be a lot of trouble in 2035-2038.
> >I hope, but do not expect, this will be solved in time. Solving it on
> >other machines is IMHO harder than Y2K but doable.
>
> And the problem is exactly what?
I repeat, I don't know. The Linux kernel people have quite some trouble
solving it.
> We only change the start year from 1970 to 2038 (or whatever it is) if the
> year reported is less than 29 (for a program made after 1999 of course -
> this will change as the years passes by...)
> IMO "32 bits is enough for anyone" ;-)
tell that to someone studying Greek history or something.
>
> There are other problems, which will require a complete rewrite of the
> standards, SQL for instance stores the year like a string (something like
> "2000-02-08") and therefor has a Y10K bug.
> But I doubt anyone will use any SQL database I create now after 8 000 years ;)
> //Bernie
> http://hem.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
--
Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
I'm a guy too. Jerry Springer
