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