On 22 May 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 11:23, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Unix systems have
> > *always* interpreted time_t as a signed offset from the epoch.
>
> No. This always was an accident if it happens.
>
> > Do you
> > really think that when Unixen were first built in the early 70s, there
> > was no interest in working with pre-1970 dates? Hardly likely.
>
> There never were files or any system events with these dates. Yes.
>
> And just to educate you and your likes: the majority of systems on this
> planet use mktime this way. I hate using this as an argument, but
> beside major Unixes M$ systems also do this.
M$ systems crashes regularly too ... is Redhat going to adopt that too?
