RE: Year 2000 Impact on Informix
DUH..... is for the dumb things people do! (LIKE YOU SENDING IN THAT RESPONSE). If you are going to address comments about PRIOR postings that I put out, please address them directly to me. If you plan to use parts of my posting, then try including the gist of it. This is so others who did not see the original thread at least know what you are addressing. Being a DBA in most shops I know require that: You are a Jack of all Trades and MASTER OF MANY.... something you OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT. CLK vnbis2@heb.com or clkddd@flash.net The DUH!!!! JORGEX_TORRALBA@ccm2.hf.intel.com wrote: > With your duh... attitude you are better off retiring now instead of > being a Jack of all trades and a master of none ! --------------------------( Enclosure 1 follows )---------------------------- Date: Thursday, 24 April 1997 17:52 CT To: sblack@elsouth.com, levinson@mds.lmco.com Cc: informix-list@rmy.emory.edu From: KENDRICKS.CHERYL@SAT Subject: RE: Year 2000 Impact on Informix The problem is not Informix 5.X or 7.X. The problem is how did you design that database? Did you define actual date fields as character verse using the data types of date or datetime (duh!!!!). Go back and change them to either date or datetime data types. How is your code populating this database? In Informix 5.X and 7.1 if you enter two digits for a year and the column is data type date, well "Informix products assume that the year is in the twentieth century and assign the numbers 1 and 9 (19) as the first two digits of the year". Did some smart programmer or administrator change the environment variable DBTIME or DBDATE to NOT use the century portion of date (duh!!! shoot them you Y2K programmers). Change it NOW. In essences you will find the most major RDMS are Y2K complaint. The problem is that the designer/programmer did not design/develop for Y2K or better yet, let's just say century! So in mid 1998 I'm going to become a part-time programmer (DBA now, was an Sr. System Analyst/Programmer) and make good money fixing those programs!!! --------------------------( Enclosure 2 follows )---------------------------- Date: Thursday, 24 April 1997 2:57pm From: sblack@elsouth.com Subject: RE: Year 2000 Impact on Informix Date:Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:57:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: informix-list-owner@rmy.emory.edu Reply-To: Scott Black <sblack@elsouth.com> X-Informix-List-Id: <list.14193> At first I was going to tell you about Informix 7's method of dealing = with this and that it was not much of an issue. But then I got to = thinking about it and I'm not sure how SE 5.0 deals with it. Our main = box runs Online 7 and the environment variable takes care of all of our = problems but we also have another box which runs SE 5.0. So I wonder = what the implications are for this particular installation? Thanks in advance for any help on this. -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-owner@rmy.emory.edu = [SMTP:informix-list-owner@rmy.emory.edu] On Behalf Of Alex Levinson Sent: Thursday, April 24, 1997 11:17 AM To: informix-list@rmy.emory.edu Subject: Year 2000 Impact on Informix Folks, I am not a regular reader of this newsgroup so this may be an FAQ. Are there any issues with the Year 2000 problem and Informix. I searched the Informix home page looking for white paper or any othe analysis, found nothing. Has anybody seen any info on that? Thanks in advance, Alex Levinson levinson@mds.lmco.com