 | | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Absolutely. I've seen it (or possibly a link) posted in the Sacry Devil Monastery and/or the Other Place fairly recently. The denizens all had a good laugh. (...) xntpd. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Passed last exam - call me MCSE
|
|
was 3.51, yes. *sigh* _Lots_ more to do to get "back in the saddle" - if I decide to even go that way. -- -Steven "Nothin' But Net!" (URL) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Passed last exam - call me MCSE
|
|
(...) Hrmmm - are you 3.51 certified or something? If not, your NT4 MCSE will be perfectly valid until ... December 31, 2001 according to M$'s cert page. I'll be taking the accelerated route to the 2000 MCSE, which will involve me passing 70-240: (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Passed last exam - call me MCSE
|
|
Congrats (late, I know). Funnily enuf, this is about the time that mine's expiring and I'm trying to decide if I should head off & start on the Win2K track or just bag it all and (try to) become a Linux "expert" -- -Steven "Nothin' But Net!" "Mike (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) Contemplated it. I give my self some small credit for realizing that there was a better fix somewhere. Part of the problem is that our DCL manuals have been lost to history, so figuring out the answer would have been rather complicated, using (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) Why did you not choose to be a craftsman and fix the problem correctly? The true craftsman makes the back side of the dresser just as good as the front, it matters not that there is no one to see it, for the craftsman would know, and be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) at least not back in '83 :-) nah, actually never did that I know of at any point afterwards either. oh well, would have been a cool feature. -S (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K bug in action
|
|
(...) Hey, look, you want it, you can have it. Comes with a buncha professors who they think that it is the center of the computing universe. Which it probably was, in 1970whenever-the-fir...e-machine. (Hardware's been upgraded several times since (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Nobody said they were or weren't! DEC was just saying that they chose not to be a supplier. Whoever it was at DEC that wrote that response is a brilliant master of the art of educating and amusing at the same time. At least that's my opinion. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Come now, atomic clocks aren't that expensive. Probably you can get one for $10k or less. Surplus should be way cheaper. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
