Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:19:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Adrian T. Filipi-Martin" <atf3r@cs.virginia.edu> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tell the world about Year 2000 Compliance Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.971119171242.22762E-100000@stretch.cs.Virginia.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971119152857.8550A-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, John Fieber wrote: > On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Nate Williams wrote: > > > > Finally, what's being done (if any?) to insure that FreeBSD _IS_ and > > > _REMAINS_ Year 2000 compliant... e.g. New packages/ports etc. > > > > The non-use of Cobol. :) > > Has anyone actually set their system clock forward and done > extensive testing? Well, it is one thing to say that FreeBSD os Y2K safe given that it can store dates well beyong the year 2000, but is is quite another thing to say that all FreeBSD systems are invulnerable to Y2K problems. I have yet to see any mention of dealing with BIOS limitations. What does a prefectly happy FreeBSD box think when it is rebooted after the BIOS has rolled over? It has to trust the clock of course, which is wrong! Has anyone considered adding a kernel option to offset the time read from the CMOS clock by some number of years, so that a Y2K compliant FreeBSD box can continue to run in the face of this obvious problem? Adrian -- adrian@virginia.edu ---->>>>| If I were stranded on a desert island, and System Administrator --->>>| I could only have one OS for my computer, Neurosurgical Visualzation Lab -->>| it would be FreeBSD. Think about it..... http://www.nvl.virginia.edu/ ->| http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.90.971119171242.22762E-100000>