Subject: Y2K-Compliance

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 05 Jan 1999 13:44:09 -0500

A number of comments--first, I don't think we should write fvwm docs
while in a fit of pique :)

Second, doesn't this better belong in the docs subdirectory?  I don't
want the top-level to get too cluttered with unnecessary stuff.

> Question: Is fvwm1/fvwm2 (version ...) year 2000 compliant?

> Answer 1 (very short): No.

Why do you think it isn't?

> Answer 2 (slightly longer): We don't care.

Sure we do!  If it isn't, that's a bug.  We care about bugs.

> Answer 3 (not so short): We all have a personal opinion on this topic,
> but we won't tell.

> Answer 4 (long): Fvwm is a free sowtware project.It is given away
> without charge and without any warranty. Everybody is invited to
> obtain the sources and check the code for year 2000 compliance (see
> out web page how to get the latest sources). If this question is so
> important to you, why don't you set your clock to a date ten years in
> the future and try yourself?

I understand the frustration (I get these things for GNU make all the
time, too) but I think we need to make the official statements a bit
less... ah... confrontational :)

I'd change it to something like:

  Question: Is fvwm "Year 2000" compliant?

  Answer:
    We're not aware of any "Year 2000" issues in fvwm.
    We have done no testing of Fvwm for Year 2000 problems.

    Fvwm doesn't care about time on a macro scale (years, weeks, or even
    days); it uses time only on a micro scale: determining the time
    between clicks of the mouse for double-click detection, for example.

    Fvwm requires that the operating system's clock and time functions
    function correctly.

  Caveats:
    All comments here are based solely on a quick check of the code for
    the use of "time" and "clock".

    Even less examination was made of modules in the "extras" directory.

    All problems and issues discovered in Fvwm, including Year 2000
    problems, should be reported to the fvwm-workers list or via the
    on-line bug tracking system, and will be attended to ASAP.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
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: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:01:13 -0500

>     on-line bug tracking system, and will be attended to ASAP.

I stick with my previously stated position...

If you answer the question, you loose!

Paul, I will give you this... I find your last paragraph "All problems..."
to be somewhat acceptable.  I'm not sure promising to "attend to the bug
report" is such a good idea.  Perhaps "treated like any other bug report"
would be suitably vague.

Still, I favor not answering the question at all.

> -- 
>  Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>

--
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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:00:32 +0100

> while in a fit of pique :)

I wasn't. I was only writing what most of us were/are thinking
to be the right thing to say. The answers I give reflect the
fact that there is and will be no official fvwm-workers statement
to Y2K compliance. If I'm forced to make a statement I'll say no,
fvwm is not Y2K compliant.

> Sure we do!  If it isn't, that's a bug.  We care about bugs.

I do not. If fvwm2 has a Y2K bug and fails running on 1-1-2000
(I leave the likeliness of this uncommented) it will probably be
fixed before you even know it was there (remember year 2000 begins
six hours earlier here :) ).

> less... ah... confrontational :)

I'm not a bit frustrated, I just don't want to hear these questions
again. In my opinion not answering these questions is the only
possible approach for a free software project like fvwm.

>     on-line bug tracking system, and will be attended to ASAP.

If you want to take the bite out of my answers, feel free to do so,
but I think we (at least me, Tim and Dan I think) all agree that
we won't promise or state anything on this matter. Maybe I'll search
through the mailing list archives for famous Y2K quotes. Remember
Dan's unforgotten guess about year 2100 compliance :-)

To be honest writing a 'fvwm cats' page has a much higher priority
for me. BTW, you don't happen to have a cat (or more than one)? I
need that information for the cat statistics in the FAQ 8-)

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 05 Jan 1999 16:03:50 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  dv> I wasn't. I was only writing what most of us were/are thinking
  dv> to be the right thing to say. The answers I give reflect the
  dv> fact that there is and will be no official fvwm-workers statement
  dv> to Y2K compliance. If I'm forced to make a statement I'll say no,
  dv> fvwm is not Y2K compliant.

That's not a true statement, though.  I don't think we should tell
people fvwm has y2k issues unless we know that to be the case.

I'd vastly prefer _NO_ comment at all than telling people it definitely
won't work next year.  If we have no statement, then make no statement.

  >> Sure we do!  If it isn't, that's a bug.  We care about bugs.

  dv> I do not. If fvwm2 has a Y2K bug and fails running on 1-1-2000
  dv> (I leave the likeliness of this uncommented) it will probably be
  dv> fixed before you even know it was there (remember year 2000 begins
  dv> six hours earlier here :) ).

I think this is the wrong answer.

First, _some_ people will hit it.  Second, the likelihood that, if there
is a problem, someone who can fix it will find it at 12:01am (or even in
the first 6 hours :) is extremely low--I don't know about you but I
don't plan on doing much fvwm-ing next New Year's Eve ;).  Third, just
because we have a fix in CVS doesn't help the vast majority of users.
Fourth, even if we created a dist right away with the fix, that still
requires everyone to upgrade--many more people will hit it.  Fifth, the
entire point of Y2K testing is that you find problems and deal with them
_BEFORE_ they happen.

It would be a bug: bugs are important and should be fixed.  If we know
they'll bite people next year, we should fix them before next year.  We
should care about that.

While these kinds of queries by people who don't seem to be familiar
with free software are annoying, testing for Y2K readiness before the
fact, in general, is a _good_ thing.

  dv> I'm not a bit frustrated, I just don't want to hear these questions
  dv> again. In my opinion not answering these questions is the only
  dv> possible approach for a free software project like fvwm.

Then lets not answer them at all, rather than saying "no".

  dv> If you want to take the bite out of my answers, feel free to do so,
  dv> but I think we (at least me, Tim and Dan I think) all agree that
  dv> we won't promise or state anything on this matter.

Again, that's fine.  Then let's not.

Or, if you like, Dan seems amenable to a simple statement like:

  Answer: All bugs in fvwm should be reported to the fvwm-workers
          mailing list or via the public bug tracking system.

Something like this, though, is probably better placed in the FAQ than
in a whole new file.

  dv> To be honest writing a 'fvwm cats' page has a much higher priority
  dv> for me. BTW, you don't happen to have a cat (or more than one)? I
  dv> need that information for the cat statistics in the FAQ 8-)

Nope, no cats, although there have been many of both cats and dogs in my
family.  My kids, at this age (1 and 2.5), are more than enough of a
handful without pets.  In general, cats I can take or leave.

I'm certainly not fond enough of them to start calling my window manager
"Feline Virtual Window Manager"--YMMV :).

---

From: Maciej Stachowiak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 16:47:27 EST

> Still, I favor not answering the question at all.

IMO, there's no problem with saying something like:

	We are aware of no Y2K problems, however, we have done no
	systematic testing and fvwm is distributed with ABSOLUTELY NO
	WARRANTY of any kind. See the fvwm license for more
	information.

 - Maciej Stachowiak

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:13:35 +0100

> won't work next year.  If we have no statement, then make no statement.

Well, as I said before, feel free to change that text. I don't
really care what people think about the tone of it as long as
they do not bother us with their constant stream of questions.
I never wanted the whole world liking me. BTW did we ever
consider calling the next release 'fvwm millenium' or something
like this?

> I think this is the wrong answer.

My comment is that I will make no comment on how likely this is
(the 'enemy' could be reading this ;-) ).

> handful without pets.  In general, cats I can take or leave.

What a shame, that ruins our average :( Perhaps Steve can save it.

> "Feline Virtual Window Manager"--YMMV :).

Me too. I like the idea of leaving the F undefined best.

Bye

Dominik