Spencer J Sinn <ssinn at qwest.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> I was wondering if anyone on the list has heard any rumblings
> about the unix time() value which is due to switch to 10 digits
> on September 9. This doesn't apply to linux ( time() was obsoleted
> in BSD4.3 and has never been used in linux) but I am surprised 
> that *someone* in the press hasn't mentioned it. Am I the only
> one unemployed enough to read deprecated C libraries?  :)

Yeah, there have been notices on Slashdot, and I saw an article on BBC
online (`Party like it's 999,999,999' or something like that).  There have
been a few bugs related to it.  Some programs assumed a 9-digit number for
no good reason.  It's a reasonable idea to hype it a bit -- this may or
may not have been picked up in Y2K tests.

-- 
 _  _  _  _ _  ___    _ _  _  ___ _ _  __   You never really learn to 
/ \/ \(_)| ' // ._\  / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__   swear until you learn to  
\_||_/|_||_|_\\___/  \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __)  drive. 
[ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20010714/1f530293/attachment.pgp