3 ms·

Little happened because work was done to prevent issues. Also it was a bit dumb to imagine the computers would crash at 00:00 on Jan 1st 2000, bugs started to

Little happened because work was done to prevent issues. Also it was a bit dumb to imagine the computers would crash at 00:00 on Jan 1st 2000, bugs started to happen earlier as it's common to work with dates in the future.

amelius 1y ago
Yeah, I don't remember the specifics.
Hikikomori 1y ago
Is there an y2k unsafe Linux you can try in a VM?
- pkaye 1y ago
  Linux (and probably most Unix systems) use a 32 bit time counter so didn't have the Y2K issue. But there might have been some applications that had it. And its possible some early bios clocks used 2 digit year that had to be worked around.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
throw0101d 1y ago
> Little happened because work was done to prevent issues. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> Also it was a bit dumb to imagine the computers would crash at 00:00 on Jan 1st 2000, bugs started to happen earlier as it's common to work with dates in the future. That is why people have the "nothing happened" reaction. There were doomers predicting planes would literally fall out of the sky when the clock rolled over, and other similar Armageddon scenarios. So of course when people were making predictions that strong, everyone notices when things don't even come close to that.
__d 1y ago
As an example, I started working on Y2K issues in 1991, and it was a project that had been running for several years already. It was an enormous amount of work, at least 25% of the bank’s development budget for over a decade. 30 year mortgages were the first thing that was fixed, well before my time. But we still had heaps of deadlines through the 90’s as future dates passed 2000. The inter-bank stuff was the worst: lots of coordination needed to get everyone ready and tested before the critical dates. It’s difficult to convey how much work it all was, especially given the primitive tools we had at the time.

amelius 1y ago

Yeah, I don't remember the specifics.

Hikikomori 1y ago

Is there an y2k unsafe Linux you can try in a VM?

pkaye 1y ago
Linux (and probably most Unix systems) use a 32 bit time counter so didn't have the Y2K issue. But there might have been some applications that had it. And its possible some early bios clocks used 2 digit year that had to be worked around.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

throw0101d 1y ago

> Little happened because work was done to prevent issues. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> Also it was a bit dumb to imagine the computers would crash at 00:00 on Jan 1st 2000, bugs started to happen earlier as it's common to work with dates in the future. That is why people have the "nothing happened" reaction. There were doomers predicting planes would literally fall out of the sky when the clock rolled over, and other similar Armageddon scenarios. So of course when people were making predictions that strong, everyone notices when things don't even come close to that.

__d 1y ago

As an example, I started working on Y2K issues in 1991, and it was a project that had been running for several years already. It was an enormous amount of work, at least 25% of the bank’s development budget for over a decade. 30 year mortgages were the first thing that was fixed, well before my time. But we still had heaps of deadlines through the 90’s as future dates passed 2000. The inter-bank stuff was the worst: lots of coordination needed to get everyone ready and tested before the critical dates. It’s difficult to convey how much work it all was, especially given the primitive tools we had at the time.