RE: Ok, making ready for pre-2.4 and code-freeze..

Bret Indrelee (bindrele@sbs.com)
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:10:19 -0600


torvalds@transmeta.com [mailto:torvalds@transmeta.com] wrote:
> In article <3857A0EB.795802E9@adtran.com>,
> Ron Flory <ron.flory@adtran.com> wrote:
> >
> > Huh? Contrary to popular misconceptions, the year 2000 is
> actually the
> >LAST year of this millennium. After Dec 31 1999 we will
> have completed
> >1999 full years. Jan 1 2001 is the first day of the next
> millennium.
>
> Contrary to popular misconceptions, PEOPLE DON'T CARE!
>
> The fact that our forefathers were Pascal-programmers, and started
> counting from one does not mean that we have to continue that mistake
> forever. We've since moved on to C, and the change from
> 1999->2000 is a
> lot more interesting in a base-10 system than the change from
> 2000->2001.

So while we are renumbering things, we should also call it the 20th century?

After all, the first two digits are 20 so it must be the 20th century from
2000-2099.

Also, most people in the world do start counting from 1. It is only when you
remind them that there is a zero that they start counting there. Even we say
that element [0] of an array is the first element.

> The reference point of our timekeeping is based on an event where the
> uncertainty about the timing is much more than a year, and was made up
> several hundred years AFTER the fact. As such, if you want to be a
> stickler, you might as well say that the next millennium may
> have started
> several years ago.

Actually, the calendar has been adjusted several times in the intervening
time. It doesn't really matter how you choose the starting point of a
calendar provided that you have agreement. Right now, the agreement is that
we will call this the 1999th year of the current calendar. We totally ignore
the correction where half a month was skipped, and several other minor
adjustments.

Getting the terminology consistent, so everyone is using the same frame of
reference, is what is important.

> So please stop sending me email. You don't have to celebrate if you
> don't want to. But let the rest of the world who doesn't care about
> silly irrelevant details (what's a millennium to you anyway) just go on
> with our life.

Correctness in all things should matter. 'So what's an RFC to you anyway'
would probably be a good description of M$ attitude towards standards. Just
because most computer users don't care about the details of RFCs doesn't
change their importance.

Same thing applies to other fields.

-Bret

-------------------------------------------------------------
SBS Technologies, Connectivity Products
... solutions for real-time connectivity

Bret Indrelee, Engineer
SBS Technologies, Inc., Connectivity Products
1284 Corporate Center Drive, St. Paul MN 55121
Direct: (651) 905-4731
Main: (651) 905-4700 Fax: (651) 905-4701
E-mail: bindrelee@sbs-cp.com http://www.sbs.com
-------------------------------------------------------------

-
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/