On Thu, 23 May 2002 cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com wrote:
> > 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?
< stuff deleted >
> People will no doubt get defensive about their own non-standard
> implementations of things; it is certainly far easier to cry "They're trying
> to play Microsoft!" than it is to be honest and actually look at the standards.
Just to clarify, if this was directed at my comment, I wasn't the one that
brought up the fact that "Redhat is trying to play Microsoft", Ulrich was
the one that brought it into the argument ... I was just curious as to how
far they planned on getting to what M$ systems do ...
