lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?

On 5 Jan 00, at 18:55, Bill Wendling wrote:

> Also sprach Dominik Kubla:
> } On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 05:13:00PM -0600, Bill Wendling wrote:
> }
> } > 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...
> }
> } But your are completely missing the point! What chip is in your cell
> } phone? Most likely an ARM or Mips. 32bits. What chip is used in
> } Fords electronic motor control? PPC4xx. 32bits. What chip is used in
> } the german d-box (DVB settop box)? M68323 with the next generation
> } going for PPC4xx. Still 32bits.
> }
> } Now look at the Cobalt Qube and Raq systems, those are the systems
> } you will see more and more, not the allround-PC. It's the appliance
> } market which is the future, not the good old computer market. And
> } there power consumption and price count, not peak-performance.
> }
> I hope I'm not missing the point. But let's put things into
> perspective:
>
> The computing industry has been around since World War II when
> the US spent tons to build computers to break German code. (I
> know about Babbage, I'm talking about modern computing devices).
> So, that gives us, roughly, 50 years.
>
> Since then, we have gone from monster machines which occupied
> whole buildings to fast computers which fit in the palm of your
> hand.
>
> In the last 30 years alone we have seen the advent of home
> computers and embedded devices. In that time, they have become
> more and more powerful and use less and less energy.
>
> So, I'm simply saying that, while looking into my crystal ball, the
> vast majority of people in 2038 will be running 64-bit machines and
> that OS support for 32-bit machines will hold the similar facination
> that support for 16-bit machines does today.
>
> Support for embedded systems is another matter. From what I understand
> about embedded systems (which isn't all that great yet), you need a
> special OS for them. If an ES needs to tell the time after 2038 and is
> still running a 32-bit processor, then perhaps they should patch the
> kernel themselves or recalculate the epoch (which has been suggested
> before)?

No, actually embedded systems can run on anything from a
FOREVER loop to a Java VM (there is one for the 68hc11, an 8bit,
64k address space machine) to Linux. The CPU cores for many
embededd systems is a 16 or 32 bit machine, fully capable of
running Linux. Many of them have a 16M address space, and I
have a copy of mulinux-which I know can store itself in 1.7M, and
run in 4M, well within the realm of Embeded OSs. The only reason
there is a need for 'special' OSes is that most mainstream OSses
are simply too large to fit in 64K.

Besides, we will hit a limit of speed with current technology in the
PC market.

Why the heck can't we just fix the issue now? I come from the
embedded world where you try to think of everything that can and
will be done to you, and make sure it doesn't happen. They have
to be reliable and robust, and in some cases work for years without
maintenance. Who knows how long your product will remain in the
field? I for one would rather fix it now and not have to worry about it-
whatever archecture (sp) we will be running in 38 years.

> } > 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.
> }
> } And for most purposes these servers will be powerful enough and as
> } long as the customers are content with those system's performance,
> } there will be people offering support for them.
>
> There are people offering support for [234]86s?
>
> } Why is Intel still investing in
> } the StrongARM platform (which will deliver 600 MIPS on 1 Watt of
> } power consumption in the next generation if what i have read is
> } true)? Because nobody with a working brain would put an Itanium in a
> } cell phone or motor control or palm pad or IP phone or ... You name
> } it and it will use 32bit embedded controllers in 99% of the time
> } (unless an 8 or 16bit controller is enough which still are around
> } and dead cheap!)
> }
> } > 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.
> }
> } That is not true. Most of the people i know are content using 5 year
> } old hardware and 5 year old software as long as that combo gets the
> } job done. And most of the time it does.
> }
> And I too have a computer which is 3+ years old. But I'm not kidding
> myself in believing that it will fill my needs for the future.
>
> Bill



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.143 / U:1.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site