Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?

[Bill Wendling]

Also sprach Matti Aarnio:
} On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 03:37:06PM -0600, Bill Wendling wrote:
} ... 
} > I'll put my foot squarly in my mouth and predict that, in 38 years,
} > people will think that running anything on a machine less than 1GHz speed
} > for a production machine is nothing short of insanity.
} 
[snip...energy consumption argument]
} 
} 	So yes, while 64-bits and perhaps even 128 bits will appear
} 	sometime into the mainstream, the 32-bit platform will not
} 	disappear for quite a while.
} 
My main point was that 38 years is a LONG TIME in the computer industry.
Are you still using Wordperfect 5.1 on a 386 DOS machine at 40 MHz? It
requires much less energy than the Windows boxen running at 200+MHz and
it has the added feature that secretaries really liked it and the Windows
version of the same product sucked (from what I understand). That was 10
years ago...

Sure, you could run your web server/widget on an ancient 32 bit machine
in 2038, but you won't be able to get support for that machine and it
will seem all but useless.

I'm sorry, but the computer industry just doesn't seem to be concerned
with what does the job. They are interested in fast, sexy hardware and
cool apps with lots of eye candy. Not that that's bad or anything.

} 	What I would like to see, though, is that when ia64 goes out,
} 	its *native* syscall APIs will use all possible scalar fields
} 	which now are 32-bits OR LESS at width of 64-bit.
} 
} 	The main reason (which I applaud IBM doing with their 64-bit AIX)
} 	is that CHANGES TO APIS IN THE FUTURE ARE ALWAYS PAINFULL!
} 	Even if you don't today figure a reason for doing 64-bit value
} 	space for something, it doesn't mean such won't appear a month
} 	from now.  (Like why UIDs there should be 64-bit when at no
} 	other platform they are anything but 32 ?)
} 

	Bill