On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 20:22:22 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <e77ddac9-b70f-452d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 17:07:27 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >xkcd: Y2K and 2038
> >> > https://xkcd.com/2697/
> >> >
> >> >It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
> >> >
> >> >Explained at:
> >> > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
> >> So, two questions occur:
> >>
> >> 1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux and
> >> friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
> >
> >Apple and Microsoft use UNIX or Linux or use UNIX time.
> >
> >> 2. Why go to 33 bits? If the problem is that 32 is too few, why not
> >> just jump to 64 and save the future some problems? Is doing things in
> >> the clearly least optimal way (you are going to end up with 40 bits
> >> anyway, since they come in 8-bit groups called "bytes") a Unix/Linux
> >> tradition? Do Real Programmers always to things the Most Difficult Way
> >> Possible?
> >
> >33 bits addresses the problem for now, and when it
> >consequently comes around again, people will be alive
> >with some memory of how it was fixed last time.
> >And it doesn't use an excess of storage space.
> 33 bits is a joke.

Also that, yes. Although historically, bits didn't have
to come in eights... or to be bits.

> It's a comic strip.

Also that, yes.

On 11/12/22 1:09 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44 GMT
>> typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>>>>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>>>>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>>>>> now.
>>>>>
>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>
>>> I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>> quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>> to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>
>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most of the
>> current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>> programs still running which were compiled before they were born.
>>
>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a system
>> which has been running, is running, will be running, with little or no
>> reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>
> Most of those workloads are still running on legacy iron, and will
> for the forseeable future (IBM, Unisys). Modern workloads based on
> current distributed technologies (the world-wide web, for instance)
> are either already 64-bit clean.

Lots of business-related stuff on the web is based on code that
screen-scrapes virtual 3270s running on ancient COBOL programs, or at
least was until recently.

> The time_t issue is uniquely an
> Unix issue and those, aside from the low-end consumer grade hardware mentioned
> above, are largely already 64-bit clean.
>
> The competence of programmers varies, and it is likely that there is
> a fair amount of software that treats time_t as interchangable with
> the C/C++ 'int' type, which is prima facia broken, but works in 32-bit
> environments (and may continue to work post 2038 depending on the
> context of the usage).

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:jtaee3F1vqmU1@mid.individual.net:

> On 11/12/2022 2:35 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> dvandom@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote in
>
>>> Dave Van Domelen, really tired of the attitude people have
>>> that if a
>>> problem is fixed, then it was never a problem in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>> Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, really tired of idiots who
>> assume that because professionals did their job once, they
>> can't possibly do so again.
>>
>> It's not a big deal if those professionals keep doing their
>> jobs, and - this is the part you're apparently too stupid to
>> understand - *doing* *their* *jobs* *isn't* *a* *big* *deal*
>> *either*.
>>
>> It's *routine.*
>
> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>
I was for a while. Yes, stupid people do stupid things.

But the world didn't end at midnight, December 31, 1999, despite the
predictions of idiots like you.

And it won't in 2038, either, despite predictions by idiots like you.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tkp0co$1bor$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 11/12/2022 1:37 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tkor96$177j$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2022 9:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>> writes:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>>>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
>>>>>> investigate this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start doing so as soon as the check clears.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or it could end up being as big a nothingburger as y2k was,
>>>>> because the people who run such systems aren't idiots.
>>>>
>>>> We (Burroughs) started preparing for 2000 in 1987. None of
>>>> our customers were affected by the rollover (and most
>>>> customer software on those mainframes used two-digit year
>>>> fields in 1987).
>>>>
>>>> And, on the vast majority of unix/linux servers/desktops
>>>> currently running,
>>>>
>>>> sizeof(time_t)=8 (64 bits)
>>>>
>>>> Which pushes the "2038" date out to December 4th, in the year
>>>> 292,277,026,596.
>>>>
>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>
>>> The operating systems arefixed but the customer software is
>>> not.
>>> The software at minimum needs a recompile. But the software
>>> needs a going through to see if it is just stuffing the time
>>> and date information into a 32 bit signed integer.
>>>
>> Do you anticipate a lot of problems getting that done in the
>> next 16 years?
>
> Hard to tell. There is an enormous amount of custom software in
> companies.
>
But then, given your preference for post apocalyptic revcenge
fantasies, you might be a tad biased.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote in
news:o0idnQslu6gLie3-nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 11/12/22 11:32 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>
>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>
>> How many appliances with embedded processors running today do
>> you actually believe will still be functional in another 16
>> years?
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>>
>
> Do not misunderstand. The Y2K problem was very real, and started
> causing serious damage at least as early as August 16, 1972
> (9999 days before Y2K), when tapes on IBM mainframes that were
> supposed to be marked “retain forever” started to be marked
> "ready for recycling” instead.

Serious, perhaps, but not especially wide spread.
>
> (It was also about that time that our operating system—to be
> fair to IBM, it was a beta—started crashing every day at
> exactly 7:00PM EST. It turned out to be caused by a zero divide
> in the rollover-GMT code—7:00PM EST is midnight, GMT. And why
> the zero divide? Ultimately, because one IBM coder was aware
> that, in the Gregorian Calendar, AD 1900 had skipped leap year,
> while another coder was blissfully unaware of it.)
>
And did hellfire rain down from the heavens, with cats and dogs
living together, heralding the end of human civilization? No.
Nobody kicked your dog, either. Professionals fixed it, and life
went on.

And we know 2038 is coming. Decades in advance.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/11/2022 5:39 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>
>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
>> investigate this.
>
> I'll start doing so as soon as the check clears.
>
> Or it could end up being as big a nothingburger as y2k was, because
> the people who run such systems aren't idiots.

Y2K was massively over-hyped - largely by the media, as usual. There
was never going to be huge issues with with things like traffic lights
and elevators suddenly not working. There were also a lot of tech
people who jumped on this scaremongering bandwagon to greedily increase
their own pay-packets.

2038, and whatever other year turnovers they discover, will be no different.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 17:07:27 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>> > https://xkcd.com/2697/
>> >
>> >It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>> >
>> >Explained at:
>> > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>> So, two questions occur:
>>
>> 1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux and
>> friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
>
> Apple and Microsoft use UNIX or Linux or use UNIX time.

IoT devices...something like 70-80% of them (choose your estimates) are Linux
underneath. There's also a lot of Linux code reuse in non-Linux devices.
Linux and the various BSD releases have used 64-bit time values on 64-bit
architectures for roughly the last 10 years but it's only within the last
two that Linux started supporting 64-bit time on 32-bit systems. The hope is
that manufacturers will pick that up within the next few years. If so then
the main concern will be old devices that never received an update...hopefully
not too many of them left after 10-15 years.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 5:39 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>
>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
>>> investigate this.
>>
>> I'll start doing so as soon as the check clears.
>>
>> Or it could end up being as big a nothingburger as y2k was, because
>> the people who run such systems aren't idiots.
>
> Y2K was massively over-hyped - largely by the media, as usual. There
> was never going to be huge issues with with things like traffic lights
> and elevators suddenly not working. There were also a lot of tech
> people who jumped on this scaremongering bandwagon to greedily increase
> their own pay-packets.

Well, I'll admit that I got a very nice boost for the holiday by volunteering
(at 8x times my normal pay) to sit at work rather than stay home with the
family on New Year's Eve.
There were a LOT of function-breaking bugs fixed in significant bits of
infrastructure leading up to Y2K. Other than generating a whole lot of sales
to preppers, the hype did one really important thing...it got the bean
counters listening to what the the engineers had been saying for years.
Which was, essentially, that the bean counters were going to regret their
inaction when the lawsuits started rolling in. Even if the failures weren't
of the "All die. Oh the embarrassment." type, customers tend to frown on things
like, for example, discovering that the service they were charging by the
minute for stopped recording usage on January 1st.
It was never a matter of not knowing that there was a problem, it was a
matter of prioritizing remediation over new features and other bugs.
Even with the effort put in, we still saw plenty of unpatched (mostly
cosmetic) issues. The most common was probably seeing dates displayed as
"1-1-19100".

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 6:48:05 AM UTC-8, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> wrote:
> > On 11/11/2022 5:39 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:tkmbd3$uc0u$2...@dont-email.me:
> >>>
> >>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
> >>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
> >>>
> >>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
> >>> investigate this.
> >>
> >> I'll start doing so as soon as the check clears.
> >>
> >> Or it could end up being as big a nothingburger as y2k was, because
> >> the people who run such systems aren't idiots.
> >
> > Y2K was massively over-hyped - largely by the media, as usual. There
> > was never going to be huge issues with with things like traffic lights
> > and elevators suddenly not working. There were also a lot of tech
> > people who jumped on this scaremongering bandwagon to greedily increase
> > their own pay-packets.
> Well, I'll admit that I got a very nice boost for the holiday by volunteering
> (at 8x times my normal pay) to sit at work rather than stay home with the
> family on New Year's Eve.
> There were a LOT of function-breaking bugs fixed in significant bits of
> infrastructure leading up to Y2K. Other than generating a whole lot of sales
> to preppers, the hype did one really important thing...it got the bean
> counters listening to what the the engineers had been saying for years.
> Which was, essentially, that the bean counters were going to regret their
> inaction when the lawsuits started rolling in. Even if the failures weren't
> of the "All die. Oh the embarrassment." type, customers tend to frown on things
> like, for example, discovering that the service they were charging by the
> minute for stopped recording usage on January 1st.
> It was never a matter of not knowing that there was a problem, it was a
> matter of prioritizing remediation over new features and other bugs.
> Even with the effort put in, we still saw plenty of unpatched (mostly
> cosmetic) issues. The most common was probably seeing dates displayed as
> "1-1-19100".

The first step was always to set up un isolated environment, roll the clocks
forward to Dec 31, 1999, and run simulated data to see how the system
behaved crossing over midnight, and a normal work cycle (say, a week)
forward.

Pt

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44 GMT
>typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>>>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>>>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>
>>I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>
> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most of the
>current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>programs still running which were compiled before they were born.
>
> The question is, how many people / organizations have a system
>which has been running, is running, will be running, with little or no
>reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?

Raises hand.

(I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled the
plug.)
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 22:06:42 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>news:jtaee3F1vqmU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 11/12/2022 2:35 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> dvandom@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote in
>>
>>>> Dave Van Domelen, really tired of the attitude people have
>>>> that if a
>>>> problem is fixed, then it was never a problem in the first
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>> Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, really tired of idiots who
>>> assume that because professionals did their job once, they
>>> can't possibly do so again.
>>>
>>> It's not a big deal if those professionals keep doing their
>>> jobs, and - this is the part you're apparently too stupid to
>>> understand - *doing* *their* *jobs* *isn't* *a* *big* *deal*
>>> *either*.
>>>
>>> It's *routine.*
>>
>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>>
>I was for a while. Yes, stupid people do stupid things.
>
>But the world didn't end at midnight, December 31, 1999, despite the
>predictions of idiots like you.

The first workday after that, however, a key command stopped working.

Nobody updated it to pull the data it needed from its new position in
the field, two bytes further to the right than before.

It got fixed real fast.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 19:37:07 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:hekvmhh5jjbjnmefu2sjoecpkqla6pmmg3@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>
>>>It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
>>>investigate this.
>>>
>>>Explained at:
>>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>
>> So, two questions occur:
>>
>> 1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux
>> and friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
>>
>> 2. Why go to 33 bits? If the problem is that 32 is too few, why
>> not just jump to 64 and save the future some problems? Is doing
>> things in the clearly least optimal way (you are going to end up
>> with 40 bits anyway, since they come in 8-bit groups called
>> "bytes") a Unix/Linux tradition? Do Real Programmers always to
>> things the Most Difficult Way Possible?
>>
>Perhaps it's comic, and 33 bits is funnier than 64, and _you missed
>the joke_.

Quite quite possible.

Thanks for pointing that out.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 12:03:25 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 17:07:27 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>> > https://xkcd.com/2697/
>> >
>> >It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>> >
>> >Explained at:
>> > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>> So, two questions occur:
>>
>> 1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux and
>> friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
>
>Apple and Microsoft use UNIX or Linux or use UNIX time.

Apple drying up and blowing away isn't a problem for me.

Microsoft, sadly, is more vital.

But then again, the update stuff all the time.

And my computers are getting older. Sooner or later they will be
replaced [1]. And, who can say, the replacements may be touting "2038
invulnerabilty" as a feature by then.

[1] In the case of the laptops, rather sooner than later. Both have
stopped actually charging the battery. Fortunately, the power cable
can be moved and, anyway, they are very sessile.

>> 2. Why go to 33 bits? If the problem is that 32 is too few, why not
>> just jump to 64 and save the future some problems? Is doing things in
>> the clearly least optimal way (you are going to end up with 40 bits
>> anyway, since they come in 8-bit groups called "bytes") a Unix/Linux
>> tradition? Do Real Programmers always to things the Most Difficult Way
>> Possible?
>
>33 bits addresses the problem for now, and when it
>consequently comes around again, people will be alive
>with some memory of how it was fixed last time.
>And it doesn't use an excess of storage space.

"An excess of storage space" has not been a problem for quite some
time now[2].

And it should be a /very/ long time before having gone to 64-bit
begins to pose a problem.

[2] Keep in mind that we are talking here about 32 /bits/, not 32K
bytes or 32M bytes. Sure, 8K 64-bit values will use 32K bytes more
than 8K 32-bit values, but how likely is that? And it would take 8M to
producing the perhaps mores serious use of an additional 32M bytes.

I empathize with the "excess use of storage space". When I found that
computers could be purchased by ordinary individuals, I played
originally with an 8-bit NorthStar Horizon, and every bit counted. But
it has been a while since that was the case.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:43:38 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 17:07:27 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> > https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>> >
>>> >It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>> >
>>> >Explained at:
>>> > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>> So, two questions occur:
>>>
>>> 1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux and
>>> friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
>>
>> Apple and Microsoft use UNIX or Linux or use UNIX time.
>
>IoT devices...something like 70-80% of them (choose your estimates) are Linux
>underneath. There's also a lot of Linux code reuse in non-Linux devices.
>Linux and the various BSD releases have used 64-bit time values on 64-bit
>architectures for roughly the last 10 years but it's only within the last
>two that Linux started supporting 64-bit time on 32-bit systems. The hope is
>that manufacturers will pick that up within the next few years. If so then
>the main concern will be old devices that never received an update...hopefully
>not too many of them left after 10-15 years.

If my normal luck holds, I will still be using one of them.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2022-11-13 09:33, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 12:03:25 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 17:07:27 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>>>
>>>> Explained at:
>>>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>> So, two questions occur:
>>>
>>> 1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux and
>>> friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
>>
>> Apple and Microsoft use UNIX or Linux or use UNIX time.
>
> Apple drying up and blowing away isn't a problem for me.

Apple solved the problem of using only 32 bits since the Unix time epoch
ages...

(pun intended)

....ago.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>
>>>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>
>>>I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>
>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>> of the
>>current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>born.
>>
>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>> system
>>which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>
> Raises hand.
>
> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
> the plug.)

And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:1a92nh1b4c0gnnf2tsq61at0iokjlhie59@4ax.com:

> It got fixed real fast.

But according to the predictions, that's impossible, because
civilization has ended, and cannibals living in caves lack the
ability to fix complicated electronics.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <XnsAF4E67ABA8F77taustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>>GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>
>>>>I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>>quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>>to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>>
>>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>>> of the
>>>current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>>programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>>born.
>>>
>>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>>> system
>>>which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>>or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>>
>> Raises hand.
>>
>> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
>> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
>> the plug.)
>
>And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
>years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?
>
>--

Well, I post to Usenet from a 1997 desktop, read SF on a 2011 Kindle,
and have a 2002 Sun Ultrasparc I do my email on..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 2022-11-13 10:11, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>> GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>
>>>> I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>> quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>> to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>>
>>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>>> of the
>>> current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>> programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>> born.
>>>
>>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>>> system
>>> which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>> or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>>
>> Raises hand.
>>
>> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
>> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
>> the plug.)
>
> And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
> years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?

My Braun coffee maker dates from well before 1994...

....because I got it from my Dad when I bought my condo in 1994...

....and he'd had it for ages when I got it.

It's probably more than 40 years old.

On 2022-11-13 11:08, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <XnsAF4E67ABA8F77taustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>>> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>>> GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>>> quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>>> to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>>>> of the
>>>> current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>>> programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>>> born.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>>>> system
>>>> which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>>> or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>>>
>>> Raises hand.
>>>
>>> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
>>> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
>>> the plug.)
>>
>> And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
>> years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?
>>
>> --
>
> Well, I post to Usenet from a 1997 desktop, read SF on a 2011 Kindle,
> and have a 2002 Sun Ultrasparc I do my email on..

Don't bother Terry with facts...

On 11/13/2022 1:08 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <XnsAF4E67ABA8F77taustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>>> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>>> GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>>> quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>>> to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>>>> of the
>>>> current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>>> programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>>> born.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>>>> system
>>>> which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>>> or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>>>
>>> Raises hand.
>>>
>>> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
>>> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
>>> the plug.)
>>
>> And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
>> years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?
>>
>> --
>
> Well, I post to Usenet from a 1997 desktop, read SF on a 2011 Kindle,
> and have a 2002 Sun Ultrasparc I do my email on..

I have been thinking about seeing if my 1993 Sun workstation will boot.
The last time I booted it (maybe 20 years ago), the disk was squealing.
I've got some code on there I would like to have again.

Lynn

In article <tkrjr0$832$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/13/2022 1:08 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <XnsAF4E67ABA8F77taustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>>>> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>>>> GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>>>> quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>>>> to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>>>>> of the
>>>>> current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>>>> programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>>>> born.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>>>>> system
>>>>> which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>>>> or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>>>>
>>>> Raises hand.
>>>>
>>>> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
>>>> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
>>>> the plug.)
>>>
>>> And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
>>> years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Well, I post to Usenet from a 1997 desktop, read SF on a 2011 Kindle,
>> and have a 2002 Sun Ultrasparc I do my email on..
>
>I have been thinking about seeing if my 1993 Sun workstation will boot.
>The last time I booted it (maybe 20 years ago), the disk was squealing.
>I've got some code on there I would like to have again.
>
>Lynn

Well then, have a plan to get it on the network quick (and enable
FTP on another system behind your firewall) because you may not
have long to do the transfer..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 11/13/2022 12:37 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <tkrjr0$832$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2022 1:08 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> In article <XnsAF4E67ABA8F77taustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:2692nh5sqaeh4ib95csfmcie379ponq5tg@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:48:23 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>>>>> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 16:57:44
>>>>>> GMT typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I said "if they're still running 16 years from now", which is
>>>>>>> quite unlikely. However, cheap-ass manufacturers may continue
>>>>>>> to use the same software in newer devices, sadly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible. As the cliche was "back in my day" - most
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> current batch of programmers have no idea that there are COBOL
>>>>>> programs still running which were compiled before they were
>>>>>> born.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is, how many people / organizations have a
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> which has been running, is running, will be running, with little
>>>>>> or no reason to replace it with a New And Improved Hardware?
>>>>>
>>>>> Raises hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I tend to use my equipment until it literally dies. OK, the DSL
>>>>> modem/router was an exception, but only because the ISP pulled
>>>>> the plug.)
>>>>
>>>> And how often do you have inexpensive appliance devices last 16
>>>> years? How many do you have right now that were bought in 2006?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Well, I post to Usenet from a 1997 desktop, read SF on a 2011 Kindle,
>>> and have a 2002 Sun Ultrasparc I do my email on..
>>
>> I have been thinking about seeing if my 1993 Sun workstation will boot.
>> The last time I booted it (maybe 20 years ago), the disk was squealing.
>> I've got some code on there I would like to have again.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Well then, have a plan to get it on the network quick (and enable
> FTP on another system behind your firewall) because you may not
> have long to do the transfer..

May be a good idea to hire a data retrieval service to recover the
contents of the drive.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 14:48:05 UTC, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> wrote:
> > On 11/11/2022 5:39 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:tkmbd3$uc0u$2...@dont-email.me:
> >>>
> >>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
> >>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
> >>>
> >>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
> >>> investigate this.
> >>
> >> I'll start doing so as soon as the check clears.
> >>
> >> Or it could end up being as big a nothingburger as y2k was, because
> >> the people who run such systems aren't idiots.
> >
> > Y2K was massively over-hyped - largely by the media, as usual. There
> > was never going to be huge issues with with things like traffic lights
> > and elevators suddenly not working. There were also a lot of tech
> > people who jumped on this scaremongering bandwagon to greedily increase
> > their own pay-packets.
> Well, I'll admit that I got a very nice boost for the holiday by volunteering
> (at 8x times my normal pay) to sit at work rather than stay home with the
> family on New Year's Eve.
> There were a LOT of function-breaking bugs fixed in significant bits of
> infrastructure leading up to Y2K. Other than generating a whole lot of sales
> to preppers, the hype did one really important thing...it got the bean
> counters listening to what the the engineers had been saying for years.
> Which was, essentially, that the bean counters were going to regret their
> inaction when the lawsuits started rolling in. Even if the failures weren't
> of the "All die. Oh the embarrassment." type, customers tend to frown on things
> like, for example, discovering that the service they were charging by the
> minute for stopped recording usage on January 1st.
> It was never a matter of not knowing that there was a problem, it was a
> matter of prioritizing remediation over new features and other bugs.
> Even with the effort put in, we still saw plenty of unpatched (mostly
> cosmetic) issues. The most common was probably seeing dates displayed as
> "1-1-19100".
> Robert
> --
> Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

http://old.oceanrowing.com/elisabethhoff/index.htm
is one admittedly "old"-labelled web page that still has
that feature: of course the year is now 19122. ;-)

Incidentally, there may be trouble again around
the year 9999.