Oh you've got to be kidding me...

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-08 08:18:17

If this is genuine, it ranks pretty damn high on my "pathetic" list. Just think about that... A basic problem with C, of all things...

cactus · 2005-05-08 08:27:46

good thing everything will be 64 bit by then.
lol...
what a troll article.

ravster · 2005-05-08 13:37:53

Couldn't we just change the epoch (that's what the Jan 1, 1970 thing is called, right?)? I think that unununium os has a start time of something in 2000. Or did they already suggest this in the second last paragraph? All this, of course, is assuming there still are 32 bit comps all over the place 33 years from now.
And what are they talking about for calculating mortgages and stuff? Isn't that to do with the number of years instead of the date?

dp · 2005-05-08 14:02:28

128bit architectures are not affected, right? so why worrying?

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-08 14:12:35

One question that I think begs asking is: why do they only talk about Linux and Linux applications? There are a ridiculous number of programs for other operating systems that are written in C...

(Hmm... that UnununiumOS looks like a project to watch. An OS without a kernel... wow... I want to see how far that will get!)

lanrat · 2005-05-08 16:24:47

That's all wrong. Here's a good source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2038_bug

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-08 17:06:09

Ahh... so the architecture doesn't matter.

Well, then why not start implementing 64-bit time_t now?

On second thought, I wouldn't be surprised if work on that has started already...

dp · 2005-05-08 17:33:31

first the funny part:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie … arch&meta=

ok, on the subject:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/ … /0239.html

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-08 19:05:04

Well, things are looking good for us, so long as the kernel and compiler devs remember the issue... Which I'm sure they will.

I don't get the map, though... :? Apologies for my stupidity.

dp · 2005-05-08 19:12:55

Gullible Jones wrote:

I don't get the map, though.

if you search for "64-somewhere glibc 32038" at google, it will interpret this as an shipping address. funny, but no town exists with the name glibc ;-)

fetreney2000 · 2005-05-10 07:26:04

Try setting your bios time to year 2038. There are several things that break and unusable. First the kernel can't set the time properly and my system currently show that I'm in 4th April 1902 Esetroot and idesk stop working and I can't start Azureus. All the KDE apps seem to be working fine but giFT stop working so Apollon can't connect to the network. Try it yourself to see what else is not y2k38 compliant

Edit:
In Windows, the clock show the time and correctly but many program stop working but the most obvious one is windows media player. Other program show weird behaviour or crash on start.

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-10 10:07:05

Damn, somebody really ought to start working on this.

iphitus · 2005-05-10 11:47:30

Gullible Jones wrote:

Damn, somebody really ought to start working on this.

from what i've read in the aforementioned links.....

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/ … /0239.html

it wouldnt be too complex to implement, and is probably a 2.7 sorta thing.

though afaik, it would break binary compatibility, and thats probably the only thing preventing it from being implemented right off now.

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-10 20:11:26

iphitus wrote:

though afaik, it would break binary compatibility, and thats probably the only thing preventing it from being implemented right off now.

That means everything would have to be recompiled against the new glibc wouldn't it? Or do I have the wrong idea?

(Please forgive my newbishness...)

dp · 2005-05-10 20:41:50

Gullible Jones wrote:

iphitus wrote:
though afaik, it would break binary compatibility, and thats probably the only thing preventing it from being implemented right off now.
That means everything would have to be recompiled against the new glibc wouldn't it? Or do I have the wrong idea?
(Please forgive my newbishness...)

exactly. this is no problem for opensource software under maintaince/developement. the only problem that may appear is old closed-source software that cannot be recompiled against new lib. (for example loki games or other closed source software)

lanrat · 2005-05-10 22:42:05

Oh, I hope arch 1.0 will be released with everything recompiled until that time :-D

dp · 2005-05-10 22:45:35

the release need to be by the Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038 ... giving the people one second to -Suy ;-)

dp · 2005-05-10 22:49:05

unbelievable: there exist a .com address with this subject: http://www.2038bug.com/

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-10 23:48:17

It doesn't exist, according to Firefox.

dp · 2005-05-10 23:54:53

Gullible Jones wrote:

It doesn't exist, according to Firefox.

maybe firefox refuses to show it ;-)

sweiss · 2005-05-11 06:12:05

dp wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:
iphitus wrote:
though afaik, it would break binary compatibility, and thats probably the only thing preventing it from being implemented right off now.
That means everything would have to be recompiled against the new glibc wouldn't it? Or do I have the wrong idea?
(Please forgive my newbishness...)
exactly. this is no problem for opensource software under maintaince/developement. the only problem that may appear is old closed-source software that cannot be recompiled against new lib. (for example loki games or other closed source software)

I doubt by that time anyone would use a 30+ year old software

oscar · 2005-05-11 08:28:14

sweiss wrote:

I doubt by that time anyone would use a 30+ year old software

If I would be unemployed the next 30 years or so, even I would find the time to rewrite the Linux kernel a few times...in perl.

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-11 10:41:30

Doesn't Perl rely on C?

iphitus · 2005-05-11 11:07:16

Gullible Jones wrote:

Doesn't Perl rely on
No, it automagically builds itself using assembly language.

Yes, most high level languages are built in C, python, perl, most of them.
heck afaik java is written in C.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-05-08 08:18:17

Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#2 2005-05-08 08:27:46

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#3 2005-05-08 13:37:53

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#4 2005-05-08 14:02:28

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#5 2005-05-08 14:12:35

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#6 2005-05-08 16:24:47

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#7 2005-05-08 17:06:09

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#8 2005-05-08 17:33:31

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#9 2005-05-08 19:05:04

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#10 2005-05-08 19:12:55

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#11 2005-05-10 07:26:04

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#12 2005-05-10 10:07:05

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#13 2005-05-10 11:47:30

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#14 2005-05-10 20:11:26

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#15 2005-05-10 20:41:50

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#16 2005-05-10 22:42:05

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#17 2005-05-10 22:45:35

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#18 2005-05-10 22:49:05

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#19 2005-05-10 23:48:17

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#20 2005-05-10 23:54:53

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#21 2005-05-11 06:12:05

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#22 2005-05-11 08:28:14

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#23 2005-05-11 10:41:30

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#24 2005-05-11 11:07:16

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

#25 2005-05-11 12:04:45

Re: Oh you've got to be kidding me...

Board footer