Re: Emerald - 2000 Question

Jeff Woods ( )
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:53:58 -0500

Dale, you'd be SURPRISED at the number of NON-LEGACY systems that do NOT
|use the four number year for the date. Sure, most languages use the
Seconds-Since date format internally, but if the PROGRAMMER represents it
in his data files as dd/mm/yy, it can cause any number of unanticipated

IANAL, but I advise you to come up with a formal statement about this
(you'll start to get asked a LOT, especially by your corporate customers),
and that you state clearly in your formal statement that you make no
additional express or implied warranties regarding Y2K compatibility above
and beyond your original written warranty (which should have limited your
liability explicity, if legal). Lawyers are going to have a FIELD day
suing, and your statement below could be thrown in the face of the court
and yourself as an implied warranty, so that if there WERE to be an
unforseen problem with Emerald (I know you don't expect there will be, but
it COULD happen), a judge might decide that you warrranted against such
problems and award damages. They expect several hundred BILLION in legal
fees and awards over this. CYA.

At 07:11 PM 2/9/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Neil Johnson wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Short question:
>> Is Emerald year 2000 compatible?
>Short question: What really does all this year 2000 stuff mean
>Short answer: Its a big, overplayed, very annoying hype of
>a problem that persists in software developed on legacy
>computers and operating systems a long time ago.
>Real Answer: Any software package using the number LONG date
>format (meaning number of seconds since January 1, 1970) can
>accurately track dates until the next millenium (give or take
>a few hundred years).
>Yes, Emerald and SQL Server are Y2K appeasable.
>Dale E. Reed Jr. (
> IEA Software, Inc. | RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs
> Internet Solutions for Today |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Emerald Mailing List