51–60 of 122 posts
I attempted to fix with adjtimex and the script in the linked question, but to no avail, in the end having to restart them all instead. After that, all was good again.
Not surprising. In spite of all press that Y2K was just a silly waste of money, its events like these that makes me suspect it would have been a much bigger deal if everyone had ignored it and fixed it after things where shown to break.
A lot of engineers[1] spent a lot of time successfully fixing Y2K bugs. Because nothing well known blew up, many people wrongly assumed that Y2K was never a real problem to begin with. [1] I moved a Fortune 100 manufacturing company's database off an ancient mainframe that would've been disastrous come Y2K. It went smoothly and was thus a thankless job. They paid well though (mid six figures - those were the days).
Not surprising. In spite of all press that Y2K was just a silly waste of money, its events like these that makes me suspect it would have been a much bigger deal if everyone had ignored it and fixed it after things where shown to break.
Why does everyone always say Y2K wasn't an issue ? I'm sure there were a lot of consultant making too much money with little work - however _alot_ of bug fixes were done, that would have caused problems. So because it was taken seriously , stuff were fixed and issues didn't happen because of that. Personally, I fixed 3 Y2K bugs back then, 2 of them would have brought down a rather critical business support to simply…
From the outsider's perspective, it is indistinguishable from any number of other putative disasters that required lots of money to fix, yet didn't come to pass... in some cases including putative disasters in which the money wasn't spent and the disaster didn't happen anyway.
I have the insider's perspective and I agree that it is the more accurate, that Y2K was, if not necessarily going to end the world, certainly a bad thing and was largely averted through effective engineering. But I can still see how from the outside it sure doesn't look that way.
I was logged on to a couple of CentOS 6 servers when I saw this happen, and on each one the Java processes went absolutely haywire. Everything else seemed to work fine. I attempted to fix with adjtimex and the script in the linked question, but to no avail, in the end having to restart them all instead. After that, all was good again.
Ouch! My Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 is still standing Oh well, reading the issue, the machine date is Sat Jun 30 16:11:31 EDT 2012 Stopped ntpd just in case
2012. and we still have problems keeping track of time. This is both fascinating and scary. P.S. for people wanting to know more this video is simple to understand but really amazing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX96xng7sAE
2012 and we still don't really know what time is. The fact that we can keep track of it, even with all the problems, is quite amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of engineers[1] spent a lot of time successfully fixing Y2K bugs. Because nothing well known blew up, many people wrongly assumed that Y2K was never a real problem to begin with. [1] I moved a Fortune 100 manufacturing company's database off an ancient mainframe that would've been disastrous come Y2K. It went smoothly and was thus a thankless job. They paid well though (mid six figures - those were the days).
When people say mid-six figures, do they mean 500k? Or 150k?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2261637
It means 500k, or there abouts; 400-600k would probably qualify, with anything higher or lower being mid to high or low to mid six figures, respectively.
2012. and we still have problems keeping track of time. This is both fascinating and scary. P.S. for people wanting to know more this video is simple to understand but really amazing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX96xng7sAE
From discussion of this same issue in prior threads, my takeaway was (a) it's really not at all difficult to handle leap seconds, but (b) the POSIX standard specifically disallows them, by specifying that a day must contain exactly 86400 seconds. (Analogously, imagine if leap days occurred as normal, but a "year" by definition contained exactly 365 days.) The existence of leap seconds means that it's not possible to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of engineers[1] spent a lot of time successfully fixing Y2K bugs. Because nothing well known blew up, many people wrongly assumed that Y2K was never a real problem to begin with. [1] I moved a Fortune 100 manufacturing company's database off an ancient mainframe that would've been disastrous come Y2K. It went smoothly and was thus a thankless job. They paid well though (mid six figures - those were the days).
When people say mid-six figures, do they mean 500k? Or 150k?