Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

February 13th, UNIX Time Will Reach 1234567890

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the less-often-than-a-stopped-clock-is-right dept.

Unix 376

mikesd81 writes "Over at Linux Magazine Online, Jon maddog Hall writes that on Friday the 13th, 2009 at 11:31:30pm UTC UNIX time will reach 1,234,567,890. This will be Friday, February 13th at 1831 and 30 seconds EST. Matias Palomec has a perl script you an use to see what time that will be for you: perl -e 'print scalar localtime(1234567890),"\n";' Now, while this is not the UNIX epoch, Alan Cox does assure us that Linux is now working on 64-bit time, and the UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out."

cancel ×

376 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Leap Seconds? (5, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776165)

Is that with or without leap seconds?

Re:Leap Seconds? (5, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776223)

On Friday the 13th, every second is a leap second. BOO!

Re:Leap Seconds? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776699)

r MM MM MMNMMMM MMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMM MMMNM MM M Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
r MrMrr'ro',oro',o',oro',o',oro',o',oro', ',oro',o',rrrrr@MM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMMrWrM'ro',oro',o',oro',o',oro', ',oro',or,r'ro`rr7MrXrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rM,rrrM'ro',oro',o', ro',o',oro',o',oro',or,r'ro',rrrrMrrBr0 Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMrWrrM'ro',oro',o',oro',o',oro', ',oro',or,r'ro',rrrWMrr0rMX Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rM2rSrMr;r,rXi'ro',o o',o',oro',o',oro', ',oro',o',rrrM7rrii@ Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMSr@MMrX0'ro',oro',o',rrrrSrrrrr;i'ro',oro',o',rr rrrrMMrrMrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMWMMM'ror`rra0BMMMZo',or`rrXBrrSrrroMMMMMMMMMB'ro ',rrrMrrMrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMMrMMrrrrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMr'ror`r:MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMWrrrMMrMiS Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
r MMM2rrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM rr XMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMorBM:MX Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
r MMMrrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM r MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMrrMMMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMMZrrBMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM r MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBrrrrMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMrrrrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM r MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMWrWMrrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
WMrrirMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM rM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,rrrrrM0 Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
MXrrrrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'ror` MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'ror`rMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
MZrrrr7MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM rrorZr MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMrrXrrrZM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
MMrrZrrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM; rrMMrMMr WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMrrarrrrM0 Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMrr,rrrrXMMMMMMMMMMMMM rrr:MMMrMMM:r MMMMMMMMMMMMrrrr7rrrrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rMM'ro',rrrr,M0'ro',rrrrr,,MMMBrMMMMr,rrrrZMMM:rrr raWrrrrrMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
r MrrrrriirXrrr7rrSr,2rrrrSMMMMrMMMM'ro',rrrrrr2:r'r o',rrrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
r MM'ro',oro',or,r'ror`r8:MMMMMrMMMMMr;rr;iio',or,r' ror`rMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rr MM'ro',oro',o',rrrrrr;WMMMMMrMMMMMrM'ro',oro',o',r rroMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rrrr MMM'ro',oro',o',rrrrrMMMMMrMMMMM'ro',oro',o',rrrXM MM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
rrrr 0MMMMr'ror,r'ro',rrrrBMMM@rZMMM;'ror,r'ror`rraMMMM M Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror` MMMMMMrMr,rr;'ror,r'ror`ri'ror,r'ror`rirrrrMMMMaMa Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror` MrrBMMMMr2rZMrr@rrrrZ'ro',rrr,,rror'rrrMrr;M@rrrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror` MMrrrM2MMM8MrrrZrrrXMrrrX,rrrrMorrrrrrrMMMM@rrrrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror` MMrrrMrrrZMMMMMMMMMMMiMMMrrrrrWMSMMMMMMMrZMrrrrMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror`r MWrrMMrrWrrXrrrMrrriMaXMMMMMMBMrSrr7rr:rMMrrrrMX Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror`r MMrrXMM2MMrMrrrMrrr,rrrM' or`rrrrBraMBMrM2rrriM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',rr M2rrMrr@rrMMMMMMMMMr rMrrMorMMrZMZMMr;MMrrrrMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',rrr MrrrMMM0rZrrrMr rMMB7MM2MMrMrrSrrrrrMWrrrrrM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',rrr MrrrrrSMMMMWSMr rrirrMrrrarMrrrM:MMBrSrrrrMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',rrr MM'ro',rrr2XMMMWMMMM0MMMMMMMMMMMMrrrrrrrr2M Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',rrrr MMr:'ro',rrrrrr;rrrrr8'ro',oro',o',rrrrMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',rrrrr XMMM'ror`roaM'ror`rr, rrrr;;:'ror`rrMMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ror,r'ro',rr WMM'ror,r' or`rBrrMrr rao',or`rMMMr Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',oro',o',rr MMMr:rr,rrrrMorrXS2,rrrrrZMMMX Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',oro',o',rrr rMMMZMMrrr;rrrrBrrrrrrMMMM Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
'ro',oro',or,r'ror` irXS2MMMMMMB8ZMMMMX: Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.

With (3, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776415)

Good question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time [wikipedia.org]

the times it represents are UTC but it has no way of representing UTC leap seconds (e.g. 1998-12-31 23:59:60).

I don't think there's any defined way for a POSIX machine to deal with leap seconds. The usual solution is to slew the clock a bit after they occur.

Re:With (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776485)

Can we just not use them? I mean, who really cares if the sun is at its highest point a minute after midday on the summer solstice? Maybe in a hundred years or so we can schedule a leap minute, and by then we'll probably have worked out sensible standards for dealing with them.

Re:With (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776573)

maybe we could just move to a calendar and time system that gives finer resolution and is based on 10's like the metric system.

Re:With (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776675)

That is a reasonable, well thought out idea with overall little recourse.
It will never happen.

Leap seconds (5, Insightful)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26777063)

Raw unix time is simply a count of seconds since a defined point in time - and has nothing to do with leap seconds. Leap seconds only come into play when converting to human readable display format (along with timezones and DST). Leap seconds have been handled for some time by the zoneinfo library used by most unix and linux distros. Even Java handles leap seconds with my port of zoneinfo to a Java TimeZone implementation [nyud.net] .

The tzdata package included in most Linux distros includes leapsecond data in the "right" directory. You can find out the time including leapseconds by setting your TZ environment variable to "right/...". For instance:


$ TZ="right/US/Eastern" date; TZ="US/Eastern" date
Sun Feb 8 17:52:42 EST 2009
Sun Feb 8 17:53:06 EST 2009

Re:Leap Seconds? (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776791)

What do you mean? An African or European leap second?

Re:Leap Seconds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776915)

1234567890 GET

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776167)

Slow news day, as fark would put it?

perl golf!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776173)

perl -e 'print ~~ localtime(1234567890),"\n"'

Re:perl golf!!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776313)

perl -le 'print ~~localtime 1234567890'

scalar() unnecessary (4, Informative)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776183)

perl -e 'print localtime(1234567890) ."\n";'

Let the "." concatenate operator do it for you.

Why perl? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776227)

Perl, because `watch date +"%s"` is too easy?

Re:Why perl? (1)

enFi (1401137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776317)

Or for the Pythonically inclined:

import time
time.asctime(time.localtime(1234567890))
'Fri Feb 13 15:31:30 2009'

Re:Why perl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776803)

Or for the Ruby inclined:

$ ruby -e 'puts Time.at(1234567890)'

Re:Why perl? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776353)

it is, you need watch --interval=1 date +"%s" or the interval could be anything

Re:Why perl? (1)

cibyr (898667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776777)

Or if we're still playing golf:
watch -n 1 date +"%s"

Re:Why perl? (2, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776451)

Or if you want the countdown, something like while true; do let a=1234567890-`date +"%s"`; echo $a; sleep 1; done"

Re:Why perl? (1)

anonymous donor (1440447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776601)

Because you don't get what it does? Hint: `date -d 1234567890` doesn't work.

Re:Why perl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776641)

That's because you don't know the proper syntax. "date -d @1234567890" works just fine. I just thought a count-up was more interesting.

Re:scalar() unnecessary (5, Interesting)

rfuilrez (1213562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776521)

TIZZLE:~ ben$ perl -e 'print localtime(1234554321) ."\n";'
Fri Feb 13 13:45:21 2009

Apparently a palindrome is one the same day!

It's also a notable day because... (5, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776187)

...it's my birthday. I've been telling people for years that my birthday is at 1234567890.

Re:It's also a notable day because... (5, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776215)

Then they look at you like you are an idiot and never talk to you again. enjoy you birthday alone.

Re:It's also a notable day because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776871)

You are a dick.

Re:It's also a notable day because... (1)

LiENUS (207736) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776585)

Hah I got you beat. mines 0123, now all i gotta do is live to 2045.

Actually, the date... (3, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776211)

...that I really feel I missed:

$ perl -e 'print scalar localtime(8675309),"\n";'
Sat Apr 11 11:48:29 1970

Re:Actually, the date... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776581)

Mmmmmmm Jenny.

so what? (-1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776221)

1234567890 is some arbitrary decimal string, if you wished to note a notable number, why not one which is 2^N, for something so entirely based within computers, it seems much more sensible to think in binary than some decimal number which happens to look a little pretty

Re:so what? (4, Funny)

Bozzio (183974) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776241)

Wow, you must have a hard time finding joy in anything.

Re:so what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776487)

he found a lot of joy in this [jarsquatter.com] .

Re:so what? (1)

SwabTheDeck (1030520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776263)

1234567890 is some arbitrary decimal string, if you wished to note a notable number, why not one which is 2^N, for something so entirely based within computers, it seems much more sensible to think in binary than some decimal number which happens to look a little pretty

Longest sentence ever.

Re:so what? (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776545)

It's also a run-on, that first comma should be a period or at least a semicolon, and then the one before for should also be a period.

Re:so what? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26777093)

So you've never read Kant or Hegel then?

Re:so what? (1)

rebel13 (973392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776297)

2^30 already passed us by (Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 08:37:04 EST) and few of us will be alive for 2^32 (Sun Feb 7 2106 at 01:28:16 EST), but 2^31 is right around the corner! (Mon Jan 18, 22:14:08 EST).

Re:so what? (1)

enFi (1401137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776457)

> Mon Jan 18, 22:14:08 EST

I disagree: Tue, 19 Jan _2038_ 03:14:08 GMT

See also, the 2038 problem [wikipedia.org] .

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776311)

1234567890 GET!

Oh I love a good GET. Hope it's not a furget again though.

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776423)

Go back to 4chan, faggot.

Re:so what? (2, Interesting)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776327)

11.23 seconds later UNIX time will reach 10^11/3^4. You can celebrate that instead.

Re:so what? (2, Funny)

arogier (1250960) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776471)

Just wait till Unix time reaches 3141592654 (sorry I rounded up the last digit on the holy number, if its that bad you can celebrate a second earlier) If you think people get crazy about pi day wait till you mix pi and unix.

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776687)

Sun 21 Jul 2069 00:37:34 UTC

That's if we survive that long. I'll bring the geritol, you fetch the liquidised boiled fish and mashed potatoes ;o)

It seems I must include a meme when posting AC, so at least we'll be able to use e-mail in Korea...

Re:so what? (5, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776959)

If you think people get crazy about pi day wait till you mix pi and unix.

However, considering that OSX is based on BSD, you can also get Apple pi.

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776587)

No, you didn't get it, it's not arbitrary. The digits are all in order! Look at the numbers above the letters on your keyboard, they're in the exact same order from 1 to 0. Cool, huh!?!

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776905)

"arbitrary decimal string" ... aren't we celebrating a common password?

What kind of stupid time is that? (4, Funny)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776237)

So the time is 123456789? That's the stupidest time I've ever heard in my life... It sounds like something an idiot would have on his luggage.

Re:What kind of stupid time is that? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776299)

Hey! That's my luggage combination!

Re:What kind of stupid time is that? (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776329)

That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

And change the combination on my luggage!

Re:What kind of stupid time is that? (2, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776433)

So the time is 123456789? That's the stupidest time I've ever heard in my life... It sounds like something an idiot would have on his luggage.

Indeed, it would be hard to find a more stupid era than Nov 1973. It was the height of the Watergate scandal, a time of inflation, energy crisis, bad haircuts, ugly suits, and the quality of pop music spiraling downward. Truly a nadir in modern history.

Re:What kind of stupid time is that? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776741)

Hey! That's my root password!

Perl script is unnecessary (5, Informative)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776289)

The standard unix date command will suffice:

date -d @1234567890

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776375)

The standard unix date command will suffice:

date -d @1234567890

That doesn't work on Linux or FreeBSD. On there, you need to do this:

date +%s

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (0)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776465)

That doesn't work on Linux or FreeBSD. On there, you need to do this:

date +%s

That's if you want to output the epoch, this is to convert the epoch to human-readable time.

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776603)

Works for me (Ubunutu):
$ date -d @1234567890
Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776399)

Leave it to a Slashdot story to make my terminal window look like this:

dave@tomservo:~$ perl -e 'print scalar localtime(1234567890),"\n";'
Fri Feb 13 18:31:30 2009
dave@tomservo:~$ perl -e 'print ~~ localtime(1234567890),"\n"'
Fri Feb 13 18:31:30 2009
dave@tomservo:~$ perl -e 'print localtime(1234567890) ."\n";'
Fri Feb 13 18:31:30 2009
dave@tomservo:~$ `watch date +"%s"`

dave@tomservo:~$ perl -le 'print ~~localtime 1234567890'
Fri Feb 13 18:31:30 2009
dave@tomservo:~$ date -d @1234567890
Fri Feb 13 18:31:30 EST 2009
dave@tomservo:~$

I've wasted my life.

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776821)

you think thats bad, i have three terminals open now, but the most interesting was.
>>> def edate(n):

... i=0

... while i != n :

... d = "date -d@" + str(2**i)

... print n, " ->", os.popen(d).readline(),

... i+=1

produced an interesting bug at 56 because the year is bigger than 2^32

I think it is infact ME thats wated my life

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776939)

I think it is infact ME thats wated my life

How can Windows ME waste your life if you're running unix?

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776575)

Under FreeBSD (and maybe the other BSD's too):

$ date -r 1234567890
Sat Feb 14 10:31:30 EST 2009

(That is Australian EST, not the US EST)

date -d Does not work (1)

linuxguy (98493) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776765)

date -d @1234567890

does not work on my Fedora Core 5 machine. Which is not that old.

The perl script works more reliably.

Re:Perl script is unnecessary (1)

dronkert (820667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776907)

date -r 1234567890 does it for me.

Can't wait for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776339)

Fri Nov 7 01:00:10 5451

Must be a slow news day.. (1, Flamebait)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776341)

I mean seriously... why is 1234567890 such a special timestamp? Where was the article when we crossed 123456789 ? :)

As for Linux using 64-bit time, that's great, but many applications still were compiled with a 32-bit time_t

Or use 32-bit integers to represent the time saved in binary DB structures, where it's not so trivial to convert.

The OS itself may live past the 2038 32-bit time_t rollover, but the same cannot be said about all mission-critical apps that may be running on top of the Linux OS.

An OS is nothing without database apps, business apps, etc, some of which source code may not be available for, some of which may be unsupported abandonware by the time 2038 rolls around.

For example, do MySQL and postgreSQL use 64-bit date values exclusively now?

What about apps that were already written and use ordinary ints to hold time_t values? They'll have issues just like the Year 2000 issues that were a problem 10 years ago.

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (2, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776383)

I'm going to quit work before 2147483647 because I don't want to update all my code.

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

Jamamala (983884) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776425)

Where was the article when we crossed 123456789 ? :)

I don't think Slashdot existed in 1973.

perl -e 'print scalar localtime(123456789),"\n";'
Thu Nov 29 21:33:09 1973

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776531)

Ok, yeah, I suppose that's valid. The news orgs around at the time didn't say anything, that I knew of.

Still, other gems have come and past with not so much as a heads up, like 987654321, 1123456789, 1122334455, 1123581321, 1231231231, 12341234123, 123412345, 12345123451, 1020304050, 1111100000, 1010101010, 1098765432,

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776753)

check archive.org

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776473)

I mean seriously... why is 1234567890 such a special timestamp? Where was the article when we crossed 123456789 ? :)

I'm not quite sure or not whether you've noticed that 123456789 would be 1973? This is a couple of years before Taco got around to starting this heap of junk.

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (5, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776527)

The OS itself may live past the 2038 32-bit time_t rollover, but the same cannot be said about all mission-critical apps that may be running on top of the Linux OS.

Or any OS, for that matter.

And now a bit of topical humor so this post isn't purely an exercise in pointing out the obvious: "Every day is a long day, because 86400 seconds won't fit in a short."

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

ogdenk (712300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776631)

Quit whining, that means there were be guaranteed work for a bunch of coders in 2038 that would probably otherwise be unemployed or going nuts in retirement.

Then a bunch of whiny MS fanboys will all be saying OMG we fixed that back in 2000, Linux iz teh suXX0rz.

Though I'm hoping that by 2038 MS would have already received the flaming death it deserves, Bill Gates will have died from some horrible disease he picked up while exploiting third world children, Linux will have dwindled down to 3 or 4 fairly unified distros, BSD finally gets the attention it deserved, the second armed US revolution will have happened with the citizens being the victors and the space program finally received more funding than some BS foreign war.....

one can dream can't he?

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776767)

Y2038 compatibility will be a feature of Windows 2037, to expand dates to a 128-bit field..

The real issue will be the old iExchange 2030 installations that have some sort of leap year calculation bug, and for some reason haven't upgraded to MicroAppleSoft iPostfix 2038, possibly out of a distaste to the UI problems and bugginess in the enhancements to the iAIX kernel introduced in iWindows Server 2035.

Or the lose-all-your-data bug in iSQL Server 2033.

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776937)

As for Linux using 64-bit time, that's great, but many applications still were compiled with a 32-bit time_t

Some time near 2025 redhat or whoever is putting out business distros will announce there entire repo is compiled with 64bit time_t with all databases will use 64bit integers for dates by default.

They'll have issues just like the Year 2000 issues that were a problem 10 years ago.

Erm where there any Y2k issues? most of the world ignored them and got by fine

Re:Must be a slow news day.. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26777087)

Some time near 2025 redhat or whoever is putting out business distros will announce there entire repo is compiled with 64bit time_t with all databases will use 64bit integers for dates by default.

This doesn't effect programs that are already compiled.

It breaks binary compatibility, doesn't match the POSIX.1 standard, and programs wind up corrupting databases, structures containing your data already saved to disk in 32-bit form, so it won't happen.

Binary structures saved to your disk by various apps (esp. third-party closed-source apps that provide business-critical functions) cannot be correctly changed with a simple library types update.

Most apps that store binary structures to a file are smart enough to use 'u_int32_t' anyways, but not smart enough to anticipate future needs after the year 2037 has passed.

I'd like to think POSIX.1 and ANSIC would have an updated version by then that allows for 64-bit assured time values, but it seems unlikely to come any time soon.

1234567890 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776343)

Aaaaargh, the end of the world!!!!

Oh, well... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776361)

I guess I'll have to wait until 2012 [wikipedia.org] for the end of the world.

come 2012 can I have your car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776441)

you wont need it after all

Re:come 2012 can I have your car? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776469)

Sure. I doubt it will pass the smog test in 2012. If everything goes up in smoke, then you don't have to worry about it. :P

Geeks in Time (0, Redundant)

A Dafa Disciple (876967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776385)

What is it with geeks and time [slashdot.org] ?

It always surprises me when this sort of "news" makes the front page.

I mean, I'm a geek, but even I think this is lame.

don't miss it (1)

NightFears (869799) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776413)

Sounds like an epic get.

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776509)

where is the typo in tags tag??

Friday the 13th eh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776563)

1234567890 + 13 = ?????

This could easily be numberwang. Fetch my broom.

Prickle-Prickle, Chaos 44, 3174 YOLD (1)

yossarianuk (1402187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776611)

I believe thats the correct date
Prickle-Prickle, Chaos 44, 3174 YOLD

For about half the world .... (3, Interesting)

taniwha (70410) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776625)

this of course will be happening on Sat Feb 14th .... at about lunch time here in NZ .... earlier that day (at breakfast) it will be 1234554321

Re:For about half the world .... (1)

yossarianuk (1402187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776663)

or Setting Orange, Chaos 45, 3174 YOLD

Y2^40K (5, Funny)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776651)

Alan Cox does assure us that Linux is now working on 64-bit time, and the UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out."

This is just the sort of short-sighted thinking that lead to our recent Y2K hysteria, except this time our poor beleaguered descendents will be in the middle of an exodus from the solar system when all their legacy systems throw simultaneous exceptions. This will of course cause their engine and guidance systems to fail, so that the last dying gasps of humanity will consist of:

[Captain]Captain's log, stardate 1704.4. Ship out of control, spiraling down towards Sol; we have 19 minutes of life left, without engine power or helm control.
[Engineer interrupting] I'll be damned. The clocks on every piece of technology in existence have failed because that damned Brit used a 64 bit counter...
[Captain]COOOOOOOOOOOOOX!!!"

While this goes on for Slashdotters.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776691)

The rest of the world is enjoying Valentine's Day with people important to them. Damn :)

re (1)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776701)

and by 2038 NOBODY should still be using a 32 bit Linux , for that to even matter. But 1234567890 == fri 13 is a bit of fun

UNIX epoch 'roll-over' (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26776739)

>UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out."

Yes, that will be a nice little surprise for whatever cyborg/singularity we've evolved into as they try to flee to a habitable star system in their linux controlled vessels.

Linux will doom us all.
BG

Re:UNIX epoch 'roll-over' (1)

DuChamp Fitz (987592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26777025)

This will all be settled by the Great Windo-Linux War of 2089. Or so my future self told me, during his last visit.

a request (0, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776743)

even though this is the wrong forum, i wouldn't know where else to put the put the request, so here goes:

time measurements usually work from sometime in the 1970s, or maybe back to the 1800s, and peter out in the 2000s, or perhaps go to something like the year 9999

completely dismissed in all of these schemes is historical time, over which there is valid reason to take measurements and establish dates

why not, instead of going to some absurd future date in milliseconds, pinpoint the start date in the distant past? say around the time the pyramids were built. you could still go to some absurd future date in milliseconds

of course, then there is the issue of exactness. however, even without all of the changes in time measurements over history, we ever could firmly establish certain dates and times

no one is promising that the precise millisecond king canute was born or zheng he left port can be pinpointed

but it would be very useful for genealogists, or climate researchers, as well as just plain history software

Not If... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776863)

working on 64-bit time, and the UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out.

Not if we start counting at a much finer resolution. I mean, after all, seconds are so...Last Century.

what base? (0)

hydromike2 (1457879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776903)

this is pretty insignificant, if we used base 13 math we'd get 168a0865a ,only special in base 10 which doesnt mean much, just silly human standards

Re:what base? (1)

rqg (1413223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776927)

But it looks kinda nice, don't you think?

Stop the presses! (-1, Troll)

nickdwaters (1452675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776929)

Holy shit! Stop the presses! Children are starving in Japan and we talk about UNIX time. Bah. I was born before UNIX time so it holds no charm over me.

Re:Stop the presses! (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 5 years ago | (#26777057)

Children are starving in Japan? I don't get it.

dammit! (5, Funny)

tbj61898 (643014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26776999)

it's my password... now everyone know it, thanks SLASHDOT! :-)

Why all the hatin'? (4, Insightful)

altek (119814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26777001)

Yes, it's a slow news day and that's why this is on the front page! It's Sunday afternoon (for most of us), ferchrissakes.

So just enjoy it, it's geeky and novel. I don't think anybody meant for it to be considered a big deal, and if you don't find any fleeting moment of joy from it, just move along.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>