On May 28, 4:35 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
> <A...@xxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Wed, 28 May 2008 15:16:06 -0400
> <483daf96$0$2955$ec3e2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
> > "Moshe, Goldfarb." <brickn.str...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:1b7tldu7iczpu.qetrgmddwiz7.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> Is this the year of Linux?
>
> > No. From what I had been reading, 2005 was the Year of Linux. Of course
> > that was in 2004. I had heard a report in 2005 that they had moved the date
> > to 2006 in order to match the Vista release, but when that was delayed, the
> > Year of Linux apparently became 2007. I haven't heard much more about it
> > though. Have you?
>
> 2038 will be the Year of Linux, and that's mostly because
> (time_t) 0x7fffffff = Jan 19, 2038, 03:14:07 UTC.
>
> BTW...that falls on a Tuesday, so expect disasters Monday
> night in the US, though I suspect we'll all be on 64-bit
> equipment by then (does anyone still seriously use a
> Commodore-64, circa 1982? Or a Tandy TRS-80 model 100/102,
> circa 1983? Or an Amiga 1000, circa 1985?).
This was actually planned in the design of UNIX almost 30 years ago.
First, the conversion routine is part of the core operating system
library, so the window can be "shifted" by switching from unsigned to
signed - then back to signed - every 60 years or so. So even if the
bit width didn't change (which it probably will), the scheme permits a
shifting 60 year window that can be easily managed by simply switching
signed/unsigned and shifting the date of "origin".
|
|
