RE: Y2k compliance

Chris Chiapusio (
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:28:04 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Myreen Johan wrote:

>>So how does it cope with 2000 being a leep year?
>I don't understand the fuzz about year 2000 being
>a leap year. The simplistic formula for finding
>out if a year is a leap year is to check if it is
>divisible by four. That formula is valid from the

because the formula you consider valid isn't the complete formula.
from an altavista search for "leap year":

The Gregorian calendar schedules leap years every fourth year to make up
for the fact that the Earth takes a little longer than 365 days to revolve
around the sun. The problem is that over a few centuries, adding this
extra day overcompensates. The built-in Gregorian solution was that years
evenly divisible by 100 do not have a leap year -- except for years
divisible by 400, like 2000. In other words, 1600 was a leap year; 1700,
1800 and 1900 were not; 2000 will be.

>Johan Myréen

now, if we were to 'spin down the earth' we wouldn't have to worry about
all this leap year mumbo-jumbo.


Please encrypt anything important.
PGP Key:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at