6 Aug
2012
6 Aug
'12
11:44 a.m.
On 2012-07-16 06:27, "Jerome H. Fine"<jhfinedp3k at compsys.to> wrote:
I'm not sure it's an assumption difference. I think I made an
observation. Maybe if you point out what assumption I made, then I can
comment on it...
As I have already noted that there can never be "sufficient number of
bits", let's skip that part. I also pointed out that the internal format
cannot be the same within all OSes, running on different architectures.
If you disagree on any of these two points, let me know, and we can have
a discussion about those.
Assuming you agree with the above, then there is no avoiding going
through some intermediate form when communicating between different
systems. What other solution do you claim is possible???
Ok. Let's back up here.
Are you suggesting a common internal representation of dates on all
systems? What range would you consider "sufficient"? Also, what format
would you propose that would be equal between all computers, having
different word lengths, different capable CPUs, different speeds,
different resolution clocks, and so on. And which is truly future proof?
Except that today people are not really satisfied with millisecond
resolutions. Unix systems nowadays have things that goes to
microseconds, and soon I suspect people will start having issues with
that as well.
And dates before 1900 are definitely not unheard of.
You use what you have. Or don't use what you don't have in this case.
Which was memory. When memory was expensive, you did not waste it on
something you didn't really need. And having an over-expressive date
format would have been considered extremely wasteful.
I think it was a reasonable choice, and in fact the right choice at that
time. If I wrote a new OS for a PDP-8 today I would still not do
something overly complex or large in size. You simply can't afford such
a thing on a PDP-8.
VMS uses the modified julian day.
The french attempt at a 10 day week failed because people got upset when
they realized it meant less weekends. :-)
Not that 10 hours per day felt all that great either...
Is file dates in RT-11 exactly the same format as system date?
In OS/8 they differ, since two additional bits were added to the system
date, but file system dates do not have that.
Apart from that, yes, RT-11 dates will indeed break at some point.
That's a problem in RT-11, which people who know and care about RT-11
needs to solve. And it is still a unique problem in RT-11. No point in
trying to involve RSX, Unix, VMS, or any other OS in that discussion.
Johnny
It is obvious that we disagree on my basic premise -
that internally,
sufficient
bits be available to represent the date starting at a date far enough in
the past
to handle many old dates in the countries which would use the operating
system. Some operating systems such as VMS achieved most of that
goal. On OS/8, Unix and RT-11, as just a few examples, it would have
required a decision to double the number of bits over what was actually
used.
What I think we seem to disagree on is the idea that this could ever be
solved in the general case.
You always will have some restriction on dates in a computer system. So
the question becomes what would be reasonable restrictions.
For a system like OS/8, I think that the original design, using only 3
bits for the year was a little too little, but the extension made, which
added two more bits, allowing a range of 32 years was more than
reasonable, given the right requirements for memory usage on PDP-8
systems in general.
Doing something equally complex as can be done on a PDP-11 would not be
justifiable on a PDP-8.
PDP-11, then again, have issues which means the solution used on VAXen
was not really justifiable.
To reiterate - on a VAX running VMS, the date is kept in modified julian
date, using 100ns increments stored in an 64 bit integer.
Using 64-bit values, and doing arithmentic on them, is not cheap on a
PDP-11, nor very nice from a storage point.
Now, RSX eventually did support most of this, but it's not something for
weak machines, and it's still a pain.
Unix choose 32-bit integers, counting seconds since 1970. Also a rather
restricted range, and yes, it will run out in 2038, or something like
that (someone else can look up the specifics, it's widespread, and
simple to calculate yourself if you want to).
However, it was a reasonable choice for Unix when initially done on a
PDP-11.
Storage was important, more so in the age of the PDP-8. Every single bit
was counted. You did not waste a whole word. To do so was horrible.
Good code managed to squeeze a bunch of instructions into also being
data, thus reusing bits whenever.
For OS/8 and RT-11, the simple solution would have
been to use half a
word for the month and day (not sure what half a word is called on a PDP/8)
and a full word for the year.
Half a word would still be half a word. And such a waste as you suggest
would never have been acceptable on a PDP-8.
Probably, the question of having adequate support for
the date was the
real decision. I have seen multi-million dollar systems which ignore the
date (like a micro-wave) and only provide the time. But if there is a
disk drive with files and dates to be noted when the file was created
and at least modified (and perhaps referenced), then there can always
be a reason to use dates on some files which precede the start of the
operating system - to note when the information within the file was
actually created is just one possibility.
If this above basic premise is not considered adequate to justify allocating
a word in memory for the year rather than 5 bits in the case of RT-11
(eventually 7 bits to manage dates from 1972 until 2099) and however
many bits were used in OS/8, then there is really no point in this
discussion.
OS/8 use 3 bits for year in a file date. It was never extended. However,
two more bits was inferred based on the current date. Often works well
enough, but files older than 8 years old will display wrong.
And yes, using more bits than this was not considered acceptable at the
time.
In respect of such vital information as the date,
saving a few bits was not
justified in my opinion. The fact that VMS arrived later than OS/8 and
RT-11, but allowed dates much before VMS was ever released suggests
that DEC had begun to realize that the date was important. The same
with RSX-11.
I think it's fair to say that it has always been understood that there
are times when you want to represent larger date ranges, but it's a
tradeoff that has to be made. And for systems like OS/8, the tradeoff
was done the way described above, and I think that it was a reasonable
decision.
Only with VMS was storage and processing powers becoming cheap enough
that you could really afford to be more generous.
RSX date format do indeed give a really large range, and is very
wasteful of bits. But that was done to keep processing to a minimum. So
there is a good reason for the RSX choice as well. The RSX format is a
headache if you want to do some kind of things, but for what the kernel
uses it for, it's really simple.
Johnny
Billquist wrote:
> > >On 2012-07-13 19:00, "Jerome H.
Fine"<jhfinedp3k at compsys.to> wrote:
>
>> >> >Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>
>>> >>> >[Snip]
>>> >>> >Ooo. So TECO-8 actually lie in their documentation... Even
worse.
>>> >>> >A year in the range 1986-1994 would just have looked like
1970-1977.
>>> >>> >That's ugly of them.
> >>
> >>What seems even more evident to me is that DEC took
> >>(as most other companies did as well) the attitude that
> >>even the internal representation of date and time was
> >>not important enough to allow the same information to
> >>be exchanged between operating systems on a consistent
> >>basis.
>
>Sorry, but I fail to see the point. The internal representation of a
>date will almost by necessity be different between different OSes and
>hardware. Having a bunch of 16 bit values represent a date on a PDP-8
>would be incredibly stupid and difficult, not to mention that OS/8
>have no concept of time to more detail than a day. And even that needs
>to be updated manually every day.
Your assumption differs from what I would
suggest - see above. >So,
ignoring the internal format, which can't really be portable
>anyway, you then get to representation. There will always be dates
>that cannot be represented in whatever format you choose. So what is
>the point of bringing up that argument? It is nice if the dates that
>you might reasonably expect to be processes be possible to express on
>the system. As for communicating with other systems, in the
>communication I would suspect/expect that you use an intermediate
>format (a nice text string for example) that both agree on. And then
>you can convert from the internal format to and from this intermediate
>format, as long as the date is within a range expressable on that system.
That
would be one solution, but other solutions are available. The
most important point is to have sufficient internal bits to start with. >When you
go outside the date range for the system, you can either try
>to do something reasonable, or give an error. I think that is a choice
>that is best left to the writers of the code to decide on a case by
>case basis.
I agree - the point I attempt to make is to stress the
requirement
to have sufficient internal date range to start with - see above. >By the
way, Unix express time as a number of seconds since Jan 1,
>1970, 00:00 UTC.
Which I think provides a maximum year of 2038 if 32 signed
bits
are used. Far better would have been to use 64 bits with a
higher resolution such as milliseconds and start at least as far
back as 1900. >And time
is horribly complex. You know that even if we keep it fairly
>modern, different countries switched from Julian dates to Gregorian
>dates at different times, the last being Russia, in the early 20th
>century.
I am well aware of the nature of how complex the subject of dates
and time can be. To start with, the Common Era (aka Gregorian)
Calendar is not used as the primary date representation by even a
majority of the Earth's population. However, with respect to using
computers, the countries and societies which first started to use
computers and the internet primarily use the Common Era Calendar
and I would suggest that the only dates which early computers did
support were Common Era (Gregorian) dates. I doubt that time
zones were even considered at that early stage, let alone considered
important enough to support internally, let alone externally. And
even if Russia was considered important enough as a market for
computer systems, I doubt that anyone would have remembered
that the country adopted the Gregorian Calendar less than a
hundred years prior.
As for just how complex time actually is, the biggest problem
that few people realize is that the length of the year can vary by
many minutes from the average length of the year. I seem to
remember that the variation can be about 15 minutes. Every
so often, a leap second has been used to keep clocks synchronized
with astronomical time (that UTC you mentioned above). The
average person completely ignores that complexity, but now
with the internet, operating systems must know the time very
accurately. But the date is a completely different matter. At
any one location, the date changes, on average, every 86,400
seconds - except when a leap second occurs - and having a
few extra bits internally to handle the year is, in my opinion,
essential.
So the initial decision for the internal representation of the date
was the base date or earliest date to be represented. Many,
probably a majority of operating systems used a very restricted
choice which reflected the emphasis on using as little storage as
possible. In my opinion, that was a bad choice. >If you
really think that you can come up with a reasonable, portable
>design, that is "universal", I think I know of a few organizations
>that would like to hear from you.
A "universal" design would be to
use Julian Days (just a count of
the number of days from an agreed upon date - which has already
been accepted by astronomers) instead of dates. Then, convert from
Julian Days to whichever local calendar is favoured by the party
using the date. But that has already been rejected by most societies
and only a small percentage of the population are even aware that
Julian Days exist. There are too many reasons for most societies
to not use Julian Days - mostly religious in nature which requires
a seven days cycle to support a holy day every seven days. The
French attempted to start a new calendar, but failed - probably
mostly on the seven day cycle. >Until
then, I'm pretty much satisfied with things the way they already
>are. Yes, OS/8 have been broken for 10 years now. But to fix it
>require more than just changing the internal storage for the date.
>
>RSX got fixed, and depending on which bits you look, it might stop
>working right 2070(?), 2099, 2155 or 34667.
>
>I don't know about RT-11, but I do know that RT-11 is totally separate
>from RSX, and any problems are not shared, but unique.
I noticed you are aware
of the TECO discussion on dates for
a number of different operating systems, so you probably
already know.
RT-11 will break on January 1st, 2100 in the same manner as
OS/8 has already broken - there are no more bits in the date
word to handle more than a range of 128 years starting in 1972.
The only solution is the add additional storage to hold more bits
for the year. Thus far, I know of only one other individual
(who supports RUST) who is serious about adding those extra
bits to the RT-11 file system, but there is no agreement as yet
about how to do that. If no one else will even discuss the question
of how dates for files in RT-11 can be used and extended beyond
the year 2100, then eventually a unilateral decision will be made -
or not as the case will be. Since it is probably not going to be
very important for RT-11 to support dates after 2099 except
for someone running RT-11 on an emulator (will any actual DEC
hardware still be running after 2099), the matter is probably only
of academic interest or only for hobby users - if any still exist
in 2100.