[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

199928: LDM and Y2K

>From: "Biggerstaff, Brice" <address@hidden>
>Organization: .
>Keywords: 199902081430.HAA10799

>Tom,
>
>  This is Brice at Johnson Space Center.  As you are almost certainly aware
>(given that you are on the same planet as the rest of us), everybody is
>scrambling to document Y2K compliance on their systems.  We do too.  Do you
>have any definitive statements about LDM's state of compliance (the higher
>ups all talk in italics now)?  I couldn't find anything in the searchable
>archives, but I could have missed wording on a statement.  What they are
>looking for is vendor assurance that the code is compliant, or does not do
>anything significant with dates that will cause it to fail.  I figure that
>ya'll are probably way ahead of this game, but I just need a statement for
>the record.  And, of course, the folks at high places want this all done
>last week...literally.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Brice Biggerstaff
>Lockheed-Martin Engineering
>Houston, TX 77058
>(281) 853-3239  (work)
>(713) 764-2601  (pager)
>address@hidden
>
>

Brian,

Our support archives have answered the Y2K issue regarding LDM:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/glimpse/ldm/2757

Basically, nothing in the LDM is time dependent, and features such
as logging etc use the Unix date/time services- so are separated
from the LDM. In general, Unix system time is in seconds since 1970. so
the 32 bit number doesn't run out of space until 2038.

Steve Chiswell