Re: Y2k Compliance - Afterstep (warning -- almost off-topic)

Andrew Sullivan (
Tue, 4 May 1999 18:40:03 -0400 (EDT)

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.)

So, there's a meta-question to Scott Carlson's question: is there any way
that X or its children interact with date-conversion functions?  I'm not
worried about running out of bits for the seconds since 1970; rather, I
want to know (in case anyone knows) whether any (various) bits manipulate
the date _after_ conversion.

So, is Ethan still right in this case?  (My impression is, "Yes."  But
what do I know?)

Andrew Sullivan | (home)| (work)
                                   *  *  *
AfterStep FAQ: or 

On Tue, 4 May 1999, Ethan wrote:

> On Tue, 4 May 1999, Scott Carlson wrote:
> > I'm sure this has been asked before, but I didn't see it in the FAQ.
> > 
> > Are all versions of Afterstep Y2k Compliant?  We are currently running 
> > version 1.0 and may be upgrading to the latest and greatest version soon.  
> > Management is asking how quick we need to do this though.
> > 
> > Any information would be appreciated.
> AfterStep does not and has never cared about the current date, so yes, 
> AfterStep is as Y2K compliant as the system it's being run on.
> The more serious question of what will happen in 2106 when the typical 
> 32-bit UNIX clock (which is based on Jan 1, 1970) rolls over is, 
> fortunately, a good long ways away. :)
> ----
> Ethan Fischer
> --
>    WWW:
>    FTP:
>    MAIL: