Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education

1985 Usenet About Y2k 406

Anonymouse Cow writes "Here's a trip down memory lane (for some of you "oldsters"). Google's newsgroups has the first usenet mention of the Y2K bug... in 1985! Quote: "I have a friend that raised an interesting question that I immediately tried to prove wrong. He is a programmer and has this notion that when we reach the year 2000, computers will not accept the new date." Check out the replies!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1985 Usenet About Y2k

Comments Filter:
  • Old news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by awptic ( 211411 ) <infiniteNO@SPAMcomplex.com> on Friday August 02, 2002 @05:31PM (#4001762)
    This link is from Google's list of historically significant usenet posts; the complete list is at
    http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announc e_20.html [google.com]

    There's some really great ones in there, including Linus announcing Linux, Microsoft soliciting for new 'wizards', a thread about the chernobyl accident, and so on.
  • by saphena ( 322272 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @05:40PM (#4001810) Homepage
    Speaking as a member of the 'slime' that profited (I produced DOSCHK.EXE used to test PC BIOS rollovers) ... I beg to differ with the description of "miniscule problem".

    While it's a fairly trivial task to make the actual corrections to the programs, it most certainly was not a trivial task to:-

    1) Make sure that EVERY y2k bug was identified
    2) Recompile/retest/re-rollout many thousands of affected programs.
    3) Persuade all suppliers/customers/trading partners to fix the systems.

    In the end, the world didn't end *because* we had pulled out the stops and fixed the bugs. It's worth noting though that examples of every type of predicted failure did actually occur.

    The originating article here dates from 1985 - the problem had been identified with 15 years to go. Why were non-compliant PCs still being built in 1997? Why were software houses *still* producing non-compliant code in 1995?
  • by Frank Grimes ( 211860 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @05:44PM (#4001832)
    I once saw a program storing dates as the number of days until 27 September 2173.

  • Attitude (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @05:57PM (#4001899) Journal
    It's interesting to note the fairly casual attitude everyone in the thread has toward this potential bug. Basically, they seem to be saying, "Yeah, it'll be an issue, I guess, but people will deal with it then, hey here's a funny story..."

    Not that there's anything wrong with that attitude, but it does indicate two things: One, that even hardcore geeks (i.e. people who had email addresses in 1985) can be complacent about things that seem a long way off (rather than fixing it long before it'll become a problem, as would be "ideal", for suitable definitions of ideal); and two, that computers were not the societally pervasive force that they've become in the last decade. A lot of the reason people didn't see the Y2K bug having that much potential impact that far in advance was because this kind of omnipresence of computers was just beginning. (In AD 1985, personal computerization was beginning...) These days, even an average Joe on the street would probably be astonished to hear that any kind of, say, large utility wasn't thoroughly computerized, but in 1985, such a revelation would have been met with mostly blank stares.
  • by Wee ( 17189 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @06:25PM (#4002025)
    If you've thought about Y2.38K, then you might like JR Stockton's Critical and Significant Dates page [demon.co.uk]. I found it while rummaging through Google looking for info related to Steltor's CorporateTime UNIAPI_TIME time value from their API. (UNIAPI_TIME was a "weird" number, which turned out to minutes since their epoch -- 1/1/90. I couldn't find any info about it, so I "decoded" it myself with a tiny Perl script. In case anyone cares.)

    Anyway, Stockton's page had me occupied for a few good hours. It's quite a read. It has great stuff on it, like the base filedate for Windows "Last Modified" calculation, when 16-bit BSDs die, when NTFS fails, etc. LOTS of good dates there.

    I even submitted my newly-discovered UNIAPI_TIME epoch value. It was much more exciting that submitting my transmeta-based Gateway/AOL Webpad's BogoMips value to the BogoMips mini-HOWTO [tldp.org].

    -B

  • Re:This is Usenet?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by necrognome ( 236545 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @06:29PM (#4002049) Homepage
    Things started to go downhill here [google.com], but maybe this [google.com] was an even better sign of things to come.
  • by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @08:36PM (#4002646)
    Here's where I get modded down for geezerness, but heavens to Betsy, Usenet was great back then. Back before the Internet exploded and innocence was lost.

    Here we see a Usenet thread, with thoughtful and interesting responses from knowledgeable, experienced people at universities and research institutes. No flame wars, no snot-nosed kids from AOL, no spamming, no hot grits or Natalie Portman, no ranting about how Usenet is a mysterious cabal of Illuminati scheming to rob our freedoms and kill our firstborn.

    I wasn't around in the nerdy, cliquish days of 1985 (I'm not that old!), but I did see the early 90's -- when Usenet was still a respectable hangout for serious and informative disussion -- dissolve into the mid 90's -- when all hell broke loose. It was exciting, and only logical, to see such a useful medium become so popular, but now the spammers and ranters and schemers have completely taken over. There are still a few pearls in there these days, but you have to go look for them in that enormous, stinking pile of shit.

    I used to use the 'vi' binding in 'nn', which gave me a full curses screen to type my posts. Now I type Slashdot comments in this puny little HTML textarea. What has the world come to?
  • by EvilBastard ( 77954 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @09:07PM (#4002744) Homepage
    Odd thing : Searching for numbers on Google

    19099 : 12,300 matches
    19100 : 531,000 matches
    19101 : 537,000 matches
    19102 : 518,000 matches
    19103 : 71,900 matches

    There's a massive number of systems out there still showing April 24th, 19102 at the top of the page. That's 2 1/2 years after the bug.

    Yeah, it was all a hoax and never affected any machine.
  • by PsyQ ( 87838 ) on Saturday August 03, 2002 @05:05AM (#4003881) Homepage
    Phew, and no one noticed that this is the wrong Perl guy. He's still a Perl Jedi, but Randal's the one writing all the books, not the language. Sorry, Larry :(

    Guess I should've stayed in Python Land, where both the newbie books and the language are written by the same old Guido.

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Working...