Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4

docdwarf_at_panix.com
Date: 01/03/04 

Date: 3 Jan 2004 17:45:38 -0500

In article <7csdvvo8crkonlvo2ul8dkutrpdmpidhut@4ax.com>,
Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:02:35 GMT, "Judson McClendon"
><judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>>The vast majority
>>of business systems written before 1990 used 2 digit year in the date. Not
>>one system that acted on those dates would have worked correctly after
>>1999. You can safely bet your life on that. :-)
>
>Oh, and beg to differ on that, too - systems which did date comparison
>using a relative day number wouldn't have batted an eyelid for 50
>years or so. Most of those were ripped out and re-written as well,
>though.

That's an interesting assertion, Mr Dalziel... might you have any sort of
documentation to support this statement about 'most systems which did date
comparison using a relative day number'?

(Not that your word is distrusted, of course... just the medium; most
blanket assertions on the UseNet - including this one - are complete and
utter fabrications.)

DD