138
The Epochalypse: It’s Y2K, But 38 Years Later (hackaday.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The problem doesn’t concern me as much at how bad we’ve become at maintaining shit that already works.

There is also the fact that during Y2K, we didn’t have as much reliance on computers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    There was also a worldwide effort to fix any potential problems before they happened.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Issue 2038 will be easier to fix because many systems are already 64-bit, as 32-bit systems could only handle 4 GB of RAM, and programs need more RAM.

    The only issue would be critical issues that run on 32-bit systems and must be fixed before that date.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    What does a 64-bit system and 4GB RAM have to do with using 64bit timestamps?

    32bit systems can use 64bit values without issue. In fact, even an 8bit system can handle 256bit values or even longer ones without issue.

    The bittiness of a CPU and its address space have nothing to do with the length of usable data unless you end up with data longer than the RAM volume (and even then there's swap).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    32-bit systems could only handle 4 GB of RAM

    I don’t understand why people always say that. Pentium Pro could handle 64 GB even though it was a 32 bit CPU. It had a 36 bit address bus. Later models are the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    People say it because it was a Windows limitation, not a computing limitation. Windows Server had support for more, but for consumers, it wasn't easily doable. I believe there's modern workarounds though. The real limit is how much memory a single application can address at any given time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    There is also the fact that during Y2K, we didn’t have as much reliance on computers.

    And we still shouldn't.

    Uniting the reliance upon long-range electric connectivity (radio, PSTN - but that now depends on computers too), the reliance upon computers (like mainframes), the reliance upon microcontrollers, the reliance upon personal computers (like Amiga 500), the reliance upon fast encryption helped by computers, the reliance upon computers used for mining cryptocoins or some beefy LLMs, the reliance upon computers capable of running Elite Dangerous, and the reliance upon computers capable of running devops clusters with hundreds of containers, - it's wrong, these are all different.

    An analog PSTN switching station shouldn't care about dates. A transceiver generally shouldn't too. A microcontroller doesn't care which year it is, generally.

    With an Amiga 500 one can find solutions, and it's not too bad if you don't.

    The rest is honestly too architecturally fragile anyway and shouldn't be relied upon as some perpetual service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent