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


They say that they want it removed off of all systems (clients and
servers) and after Y2K, it can be installed again, which is fine
but I just wanted to avoid this lunacy.  :-)

Actually, If you could put up a page that looks semi-official
I will point them to it and I'm willing to bet they will accept
it.  We could try it and "test" them.  It may be fun just to see
what they do.  :-)  Of course the page needs to say that the Gimp
and it's related software libraries are all Y2K compliant including
GTK, Glib, and Jpeg.  Or we can just let it all go and I'll just
have to reinstall it after Y2K...  


Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:51:05 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> Sorry, that Ctrl-S was meant for XEmacs...
> > On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:52:54 -0500, Marc wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You mean that the people responsible for Y2K testing in your company don't
> > know what the Y2K problem really is?
> >
> > Now if you just promise them that you won't
> OK, what I wanted to say: Now if you just promise them that you don't use
> Gimp on december 31, nothing can go wrong.
> What happens if they remove Gimp&friends. The Y2K will pass, and then? Are
> you allowed to re-install the software on 01-jan-2000? This is of course
> exactly the same as promising that you won't use Gimp. If your Y2K team
> accepts this last one, they are really clueless.
> >> On your other note, yes, I could do the Y2K testing myself, but the
> >
> > No. If your company is really serious about Y2K, the Y2K test team should
> > do the audit because that's their job. If they don't know how to do that,
> > then the wrong people are set on that job.
> >
> >> 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:
> >>
> >>  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.  :-)
> Hey, I can put up a page for your company ;-).
> 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
> WWW:
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe < /dev/null

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]