> I doubt the wisdom of continuing to talk about Y2K compliance, > here in Y2K+5. We could talk about Y2100 compliance.
Actually the next crisis is the 2039 problem (which will be utterly ignored because Y2K was such a bust :-). Microsoft is no doubt licking its chops and waiting for 2039 since Windows doesn't use a 4 byte unsigned for its primary timestamp, and therefore only Linux will have the 2039 bug.
