21 Dec
1998
21 Dec
'98
3:42 p.m.
On Dec 21, 18:20, Scott Ware wrote:
SGI also does not certify any of their systems with
68K, R2000, or R3000
processors to be Y2K compliant, presumably because they cannot run IRIX
6.5. Watch your local scrap dealer for IRIS 2000/3000, 4D series, and
Indigo R3000 systems.
IRIX 5.3 and above are all Y2K compliant (providing they include the
rlevant patches).
Indigo R3000 and 4D systems running IRIX 5.3 *will* take all the Y2K
patches (there aren't many, since 5.3 was mostly Y2K compliant anyway). I
know; I did a survey on this earlier this year, and I've just finished
(literally, about 5 minutes ago) installing the Y2K patches on an Indigo
Elan for my wife's Christmas present. Of course, if you can get one at a
reasonable price, an Indigo is a very nice classic (though not quite by
this list's definition, it was released in 1991) machine. Now if only I
could get a copy of Star Office or Word Perfect for Irix 5.3...
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
21 Dec
21 Dec
3:51 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 720 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981221/a0bb2a3f/at…
5:32 p.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
-spc (Can't comprehend what would break on a
Unix system come 2000 ... )
Well, on the unixpc (att 7300/3b1), it is not possible to set a date >
12/31/99 thru either the setup screen or the 'date' utility. it is
possible to 'walk' the date into 2000 by setting 12/31/99 23:59. Once
over the hump it is then possible to advance to 23:59 12/31/00, etc. But
two digit dates in 2000 display mm/yy/100 (sic). Does that count as
broke? :).
Date arithmetic seems to work OK beyond 01/01/00 tho.
Moral: Install a new clock battery for Xmas '99 and keep goin'.
Bill
22 Dec
22 Dec
5:01 a.m.
At 09:51 PM 12/21/98 -0500, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Um, IRIX is a Unix derivative, right? What about IRIX ISN'T Y2K
compliant? 2038 compliant, I can see, but 2000? Do these companies go out
fo their way to make stuff non-Y2k compilant?
-spc (Can't comprehend what would break on a Unix system come 2000 ... )
Sure, raw time() values aren't sensitive to Y2K, but it's always
possible for an app to emit and process the date as two chars.
I've seen code that indexes into the string from ctime(time()) and
yanks the year chars from there. And I think %Y is a valid printf()
formatter now, but I've never seen it in use.
Just to keep it on-thread, I peeked at the picture of the PS-300
on the previously mention web page, and can confirm I only saw the
monitor and digitizing pad, but no main unit. I had second thoughts
about the Sequent S27, though - if it had a dozen or so 386 boards
in it, what sort of RAM might be inside?
- John
5:22 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1090 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981222/173470b8/at…
5:39 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 584 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981222/029955e9/at…
6:13 a.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
:: -spc (It's 1998 and systems are STILL not Y2K
compliant?)
Get a computer without an internal date and it's guaranteed Y2K compliant.
Why do you think I use my 128DCR? ;-)
Not so fast... That guarentees the system is hardware compliant.
Applications can still do very stupid things based on dates typed in.
Allison
4:26 p.m.
At 09:51 PM 21-12-98 -0500, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
-spc (Can't comprehend what would break on a Unix
system come 2000 ... )
Typically it's not the core parts of the operating system but things like
the vendor provided shell scripts are usually not Y2K compliant.
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au
Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 9479 1550 Fax: +61 3 9479 1999
La Trobe University | "If God had wanted soccer played in the
Melbourne Australia 3083 | air, the sky would be painted green"
9350
days inactive
9351
days old
7 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu -
H.Davies＠latrobe.edu.au -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com -
spc＠armigeron.com -
wpfulmor＠dimensional.com