Maybe you should ask your employers their cars are Y2K compliant. That should really freak 'em out. =] > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:53 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [gtk-list] Re: A "dumb" question needs an answer.. Y2K?? > > > > Thanks for the reply Erik... > > Unfortunately, my employer DOES believe in the Y2K FUD. They > want to remove ANY software that has not been deemed Y2K compliant > even if it isn't mission critical in and of itself. They believe > that any application like this could cause systems to crash or > cause other applications to malfunction. > > On your other note, yes, I could do the Y2K testing myself, but the > process we have in place for testing and entering it into our > Y2K compliant database is extremely time consuming. Of course it > is... why would you expect them to use common sense with that aspect > of it if they aren't using it in deciding which apps are and are not > Y2K compliant. I was just hoping for some "golden" statement I can > use to fight my cause or a web page like the one at: > > http://www.rru.com/~meo/gimp/y2k.html for the gimp itself. > > I know it's ridiculous that they will accept pages like this > as proof, but will not just take my word for it. Anyone can > put up a web page. Yes, it is quite ridiculous. I suppose > I can put up a page saying that I checked everything and it > looks compliant to me. They may accept that, but if they > found out that I was the author who knows what they'd do. :-) > > -Marc > > Erik Mouw wrote: > > > > On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:19 -0500, Marc wrote: > > > Background: > > > > > > We make use of the gimp where I work. My employer is > > > threatening to force its removal if I cannot show it to > > > be fully Y2K compliant. I have pointed them to the > > > "unofficial" Y2K compliant gimp site and that seemed > > > to please them, but now they are telling me that they will > > > be removing glib, gtk, and the jpeg libraries since they can't > > > find any information relating to their Y2K compliance. I > > > have tried to explain to them that these things are graphics > > > libraries and don't really manipulate dates in any way, but > > > they are steadfast for removing them. > > > > Hmm, sadly enough your employer seems to believe in the Y2K > FUD. Ask your > > employer if there is something mission critical built > around Gimp. What > > will happen if Gimp is not Y2K compliant? Will it seriously > threaten your > > company? If not, there is no reason to worry. > > > > > What I'd Like: > > > > > > I'd appreciate it if someone/developer could send me a > > > statement I can use as ammunition in reversing their desire > > > to remove this software. Or possibly a web page specifically > > > mentioning this software as being Y2K compliant. > > > > OK, you *have* the source. So what's easier than doing your > own Y2K audit? > > First find all files which do date manipulations: > > > > find . -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep time {} /dev/null \; > > > > Now check those files and see what happens with the dates. > The normal Unix > > time functions are Y2K compliant, so as long as the > Gimp/GTK/Glib/jpeg > > sources don't do anyhing special with the date, nothing > will go wrong. > > > > If you don't want to do a Y2K audit, just set the > computer's clock to > > 31-dec-1999-23:59, start Gimp and see what happens. > > > > Also have a look at http://www.gnu.org/software/year2000.html . > > > > Erik > > > > -- > > J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory > Group, Department > > of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Information > Technology and Systems, > > Delft University of Technology, PO BOX 5031, 2600 GA > Delft, The Netherlands > > Phone: +31-15-2785859 Fax: +31-15-2781843 Email > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/ > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe > [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > > -- > To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe > [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > > -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
