Subject: Tired of Y2k questions

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:05:59 -0500 (EST)

I see the general list has gotten another couple of Y2k
questions. Do we want to continue sidestepping the issue, or should
we put a note in the FAQ - with appropriate disclaimers, of course?
Something on the order of:

	We believe, in good faith, that FVWM is as non-chiliastic
	as blah blah blah.

	FVWM does not concern itself with dates, the area where the
	millenium rollover is an issue. The only areas in which
	it makes use of timestamps are:

		Short interval timers blah blah.
		X event timestamps blah

	Disclaimer: This software is provided free of charge, and the
	responsibility for verifying its Y2k compliance rests entirely
	with you, as do all other responsibilites concerning its blah,
	blah, and blah. So don't even *think* of trying to sue anyone
	when your system breaks. Blah.

- Bob

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:20:05 -0500

> 	when your system breaks. Blah.

As you are probably  aware, lawyers see  this  whole thing as a  great
opportunity.  The last part, (the  Disclaimer) is the only statement I
would even think about making.  (But I am not making it.)

I think these questions are something like the "pull my finger joke",
any attempt to answer the question shows you have been taken.

I don't favor putting anything in the FAQ, or anywhere else that could
be construed   as part of  fvwm.

It just amazes  me that these  people using open source, free software
would have the  nerve to seek some kind   of guarantee.  What do  they
want, their money back?    No, they want   someone to sue.   This last
question seemed  to come from  a  big corporation.  Do you  think they
would be willing to examine the  source code and make a representation
on the mailing list that the software was safe?

I'd give even odds that the answer from Portugal won't be good enough.

Oops, sorry, (I may calm down in about 13 months, 20 days).

--
Dan Espen                                Phone: (732) 699-5570
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:04:26 +0000

> be construed   as part of  fvwm.

I agree.  The only Y2K statement that we should make is that we don't
have a Y2K statement.

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:43:39 +0100

> I agree.  The only Y2K statement that we should make is that we don't

Well, we could put that statement into a file 'Y2K' and be rid
of those wuestions. Perhaps a reminder of the copyrights and
warranties (=none) in the COPYING file would help too.

Bye

Dominik
-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:15:56 -0500

> warranties (=none) in the COPYING file would help too.

I think we've had 2 votes against.

Any Y2K statement in the package could inhibit the ability of some
of us to work on fvwm2.

(Yes, it is that bad.)

Don't let these questions fool you.  They imply that they can't use
fvwm2 unless its certified.

Big deal, they  stop using fvwm   on 12/31/99 11:59:59,  then suddenly
they check it out  on 01/01/00 01:00:00, when its  no longer an issue,
and decide, maybe they can use this thing after all.

My prediction of the hour...  Every system developed from scratch
using only current and future dates, where development starts between
2000 and 2097 will be non-Y2100 compliant.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:41:51 +0100

> Any Y2K statement in the package could inhibit the ability of some

No, I meant the statement that there is and will be no statement
just to be rid of all these questions.

> fvwm2 unless its certified.

Yes, I understood that. I don't care if any company uses fvwm. I can
get a precompiled fvwm at HP and there will be one after 1-1-2000. Noone
guaranteed them anything though.

> and decide, maybe they can use this thing after all.

Yup, just let them try.
 
> 2000 and 2097 will be non-Y2100 compliant.

Some people are considering the Y10000 problem ;-)

Bye

Dominik