On Tue, 4 May 1999, Ethan wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 1999, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > Ethan's remarks interested me, because I recently took responsibility for > > a library's systems, including an HP-UX box. Turns out HP-UX 10.20 is not > > compliant, but I don't seem to be able to find out exactly how. There's > > just this big pile of patches that they're offering. (Fortunately (!?), > > our automation system provider is one of those, "You don't need to know," > > types. So I don't have to do the work, I just have to clean up if it > > breaks. What a good deal! Eeeuughhh.) > > Best way to test is to change the system date to 2000, restart, and see > if it still works. I remember testing this way on my linux box a while > back; it was amusing because while I could set the date forward, I > couldn't just as easily set it backwards again... Other useful dates to test for Y2K compliance (really to test date-handling in general, as some of these are not necessarily related to the millenium): 09/09/1999 - it's mostly a COBOL thing ... "oops" 12/31/1999 - let it roll over midnight 02/29/2000 - yes there IS a leap day next year 12/31/2000 - another midnight rollover test It's important to let things run for a bit after changing the date, particularly for the rollover tests. The OS may boot just fine but your apps may be deeply (sometimes subtly) screwed up. > As an interesting test case, take XFree86 on my x86 linux box. It > counts time not in seconds, but in 100th's of seconds. The rollover is > thus every 248 days. If AfterStep is left running this long (or just > happens to hit the rollover), strange things happen. Old SunOS machines have this problem too. -=Eric -- Do you lie for booze? -----------> eric sorenson <------------ Sell your soul to the Devil? ----> http://satanic.org <------- Alcoholic, me? -- Mr Jenkins haiku from http://www.zeldman.com -- WWW: http://www.afterstep.org/ FTP: ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/ MAIL: http://www.calderasystems.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html