Re: [gtk-list] Re: A "dumb" question needs an answer.. Y2K??

[Marc <marcael home com>]

Thanks for the reply Erik...

Unfortunately, my employer DOES believe in the Y2K FUD.  They
want to remove ANY software that has not been deemed Y2K compliant
even if it isn't mission critical in and of itself.  They believe
that any application like this could cause systems to crash or
cause other applications to malfunction.  

On your other note, yes, I could do the Y2K testing myself, but the
process we have in place for testing and entering it into our 
Y2K compliant database is extremely time consuming.  Of course it
is... why would you expect them to use common sense with that aspect
of it if they aren't using it in deciding which apps are and are not
Y2K compliant.  I was just hoping for some "golden" statement I can
use to fight my cause or a web page like the one at:

http://www.rru.com/~meo/gimp/y2k.html  for the gimp itself.

I know it's ridiculous that they will accept pages like this
as proof, but will not just take my word for it.  Anyone can
put up a web page.  Yes, it is quite ridiculous.  I suppose
I can put up a page saying that I checked everything and it
looks compliant to me.  They may accept that, but if they
found out that I was the author who knows what they'd do.  :-)

-Marc

Erik Mouw wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:19 -0500, Marc wrote:
> > Background:
> >
> >   We make use of the gimp where I work.  My employer is
> >   threatening to force its removal if I cannot show it to
> >   be fully Y2K compliant.  I have pointed them to the
> >   "unofficial" Y2K compliant gimp site and that seemed
> >   to please them, but now they are telling me that they will
> >   be removing glib, gtk, and the jpeg libraries since they can't
> >   find any information relating to their Y2K compliance.  I
> >   have tried to explain to them that these things are graphics
> >   libraries and don't really manipulate dates in any way, but
> >   they are steadfast for removing them.
> 
> Hmm, sadly enough your employer seems to believe in the Y2K FUD. Ask your
> employer if there is something mission critical built around Gimp. What
> will happen if Gimp is not Y2K compliant? Will it seriously threaten your
> company? If not, there is no reason to worry.
> 
> > What I'd Like:
> >
> >   I'd appreciate it if someone/developer could send me a
> >   statement I can use as ammunition in reversing their desire
> >   to remove this software.  Or possibly a web page specifically
> >   mentioning this software as being Y2K compliant.
> 
> OK, you *have* the source. So what's easier than doing your own Y2K audit?
> First find all files which do date manipulations:
> 
>   find . -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep time {} /dev/null \;
> 
> Now check those files and see what happens with the dates. The normal Unix
> time functions are Y2K compliant, so as long as the Gimp/GTK/Glib/jpeg
> sources don't do anyhing special with the date, nothing will go wrong.
> 
> If you don't want to do a Y2K audit, just set the computer's clock to
> 31-dec-1999-23:59, start Gimp and see what happens.
> 
> Also have a look at http://www.gnu.org/software/year2000.html .
> 
> Erik
> 
> --
> J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory Group, Department
> of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems,
> Delft University of Technology, PO BOX 5031,  2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
> Phone: +31-15-2785859  Fax: +31-15-2781843  Email J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl
> WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe gtk-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null