Quote:> > Ok, condensed story is this: I just moved to a new group within my
> > company, that new group raises their children on Korn and doesn't
> > want anything to do with any other shell.
Quote:> They sound like a sorry-ass bunch of backward luddites; there are
> cool shells that are similar to Korn but with much better
> interactivity features, such as zsh or bash.
Maybe they figure Korn is a Supported Product[tm] and these others
Quote:> > however, I must somehow prove to them that tcsh is year 2000
> > compliant.
> Why don't you ask them to first prove that the Korn shell is Y2K
This is probably a political thing. The people Brian is dealing with
probably don't really understand what Y2K-compliance in a shell really
means and what it affects, and are paranoid. Like I said, ksh probably
came with their OS, so they can sue Sun or AT&T or whomever if the Y2K
reassurances they have been given turn out not to be true.
Quote:> You might also argue that you are only using the tcsh for interactive
> use, and that you won't be writing any programs in it, other than
> perhaps simple scripts for personal use.
Yeah, requiring Y2K in a shell that will only be used interactively by
one person is IMHO pretty dumb -- what can break? And if it does
break, you just chsh. This is what makes me think Brian is dealing
with people who are paranoid and don't really understand the issues.
Quote:> Read the source, identify any modules that deal with date and time
> and analyze them for potential bugs, like the use of two digit
I suspect this would be wasted effort. When many people want to know
if something is Y2K-compliant, what they really want is a place to
point a finger if something goes wrong -- not a technical analysis. As
such, what Brian probably needs is to find a Y2K statement by the
vendor of tcsh ... except that it's free software and nobody warrants
it (which is also technically true of most commercial software, though
at least vendors "support" it), so maybe nothing would satisfy.
<sampo.creighton.edu ! psamuels>