[LINK] Y2K10 Bugs

[Lea de Groot]

On 5/01/10 7:42 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> There appear to have been several software errors become apparent with
> the handling of dates in the year 2010. These include EFTpos machines,
> smart phones and anti-spam software. Given that it is ten years since
> the Y2K bug was supposed to hit and there have been several
> retrospective stores saying how it was a non-event, this is somewhat ironic.

Each decade there will be some Y2K bug reruns popup, if left undetected.
The standard solution for clients that refused to redo the db to 
4-column dates was to add an if into the code, for example:
if date < 39, use 2000 + date else use 1900 + date
in the repeated assumption that surely by XX they will have upgraded 
this system?!?!?
39 through 69 were common dates, but generally on the '9' year.
So each decade, rollover will see some systems fail.
Cascading failure while avoiding a fix to the real problem, eh?

Lea
~ ah, memories!
-- 
Lea de Groot
Brisbane, .au