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

[Kevin Handy <kth srv net>]

Sounds like you've got a bunch of PHB's (Pointy Haired Bosses).

If they are only starting to worry about Y2K problems now, they
are already lost. Your big problem is going to be once they get
a Y2K statement about these libraries, they will also need one for
libc, libm, xfree, gettext, imlib, themes, ... (I'd like to
see them yank all those out :)

At this point, I'd be looking for a new job, because from now
on your main occupation is going to be running from library
to library looking for Y2K statements from now till the middle
of next year.

If you have programs developed using these libraries, you aren't
goung to be able to do a good job of rewriting them to use
something different in two months, and you'll have to look for
Y2K statements for whatever you replace them with.

If you are just starting out, you aren't going to have a decent
product with only two months of development.

Either way, in my opinion, they have completely missed the last
boat, and are going down with the titanic.

Sorry, buy I've been chasing around the 'will Y2K will destroy us'
question for some time now, and in my opinion it's getting way too much
attention from PHB's than it deserves. I've been getting queried
three times a week from some clients, and even showing them a
system running with the date in 2000 doesn't stop them from asking
the same question again couple of days later.

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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I apologize for asking this, because I know there are more
> important things going on, but I'd really like to keep using
> this software where I work.