Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Charging Businesses $4K for DST Fix

eldavojohn writes "Microsoft has slashed the price it's going to charge users on the daylight saving time fixes. As you know, the federal law that moves the date for DST goes into effect this month. Although the price of $4000 is 1/10 of the original estimate Microsoft made, it seems a bit pricey for a patch to a product you've already paid for. From the article: 'Among the titles in that extended support category are Windows 2000, Exchange Server 2000 and Outlook 2000, the e-mail and calendar client included with Office 2000. For users running that software, Microsoft charges $4,000 per product for DST fixes. For that amount, customers can apply the patches to all systems in their organizations, including branch offices and affiliate.' The only thing they can't do, said a Microsoft rep, is redistribute them."

288 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Screw 'em by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Manually adjust the clock. Just write a small script to take care of it for logins or as a scheduled task for servers.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Screw 'em by iPaul · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kerberos auth has problems if the clocks are > 300 sec out of sync. It's not that you couldn't do it manually, you just run the risk of a "hickup", like no one in the domain is allowed to log in.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    2. Re:Screw 'em by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      What happens if I make an appointment now for sometime in the period of adjustment?
      Will everybody know that the 9am I told it should really be 10am or vice versa?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Screw 'em by Anml4ixoye · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hahaha.

      As an engineer who is right in the middle of helping our customers make the changes necessary for the DST fix, it is much more complicated than that.

      First, you have all of the servers and clients which rely on one another. The biggest effect is on mail - Exchange/Outlook/OWA.

      Second, you have to do it in the right order, at about the same time. If you update the server, then clients who schedule appointments will be off until they update.

      Third, you've got software which calculates various things based on that date. Think financial transactions, etc.

      I've blogged about the tool we have to help customers figure out what has to be done.

      I wish it was as easy as just updating a script, but when you have to coordinate that change across 10s or 100s of thousands of servers, clients, etc, it's not an easy task.

      And let's not forget Microsoft isn't the only one having to make changes. Lotus Notes, Groupwise, Blackberries - they all have changes that have to be made. I'll personally be glad when this is all done. Ugh.

    4. Re:Screw 'em by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But all Linux had to do was update its zone info stuff.

      Why is Windows so much harder? Didnt they do it properly?

    5. Re:Screw 'em by wfberg · · Score: 1


      Second, you have to do it in the right order, at about the same time. If you update the server, then clients who schedule appointments will be off until they update.


      Huh? How does that happen, assuming you're a good boy and using timestamps in UTC in the first place? You know, the ones that look like "Sat, 3 Mar 2007 08:06:08 -0800 (PST)", the ones you find in e-mail headers for example?

      If Outlook can't cope with that, how can it cope with people in different offices with different timezones? Or people with laptops?

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    6. Re:Screw 'em by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey Jobe, Wake the 'Hick Up'!!!

      --
    7. Re:Screw 'em by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Any competent software that has to deal with locations in multiple time zones uses UTC. The only thing that ever worries about DST is conversions to local time.

    8. Re:Screw 'em by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its basically a Microsoft WTF. While every sane operating system keeps the hardware clock on universal time (UTC/GMT), Windows keeps the hardware clock on local time. This affects things like the date format stored on disk in the filesystem.

    9. Re:Screw 'em by jcr · · Score: 1

      Windows keeps the hardware clock on local time.

      Are you serious? I mean, it sounds like the kind of thing MS would do, but that's really mind-bogglingly stupid.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Screw 'em by Anml4ixoye · · Score: 1

      Huh? How does that happen, assuming you're a good boy and using timestamps in UTC in the first place? You know, the ones that look like "Sat, 3 Mar 2007 08:06:08 -0800 (PST)", the ones you find in e-mail headers for example?

      The problem is when that gets interpreted to the local machine.

      Let's say you schedule the above meeting during the DST change. If I don't have the update, when I get the alert, it will be an hour off because the calculation to local time will take into account the DST rules for you, but not for me.

      Here's a little more info on the DST thing and MS.

    11. Re:Screw 'em by iPaul · · Score: 1

      lol

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    12. Re:Screw 'em by dotfile · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm, that's not really the problem. It doesn't matter what the hardware clock is set for, UTC or local time. In any sane installation you're only going to use the hardware clock until you sync with the NTP servers anyway. The local time is still going to change on a different date than the OS is configured for. If you have Linux or UNIX boxes and keep the hardware clock set for UTC, you're STILL going to need to fix the time zone setings for the correct DST changeover dates, otherwise all local times will be off by an hour between the new changeover date and the old one. It's not a clock thing, it a time zone thing. We're having to apply patches to every single box in our infrastructure -- that's around 15,000 systems, not including desktops. Those add another 100K or more. We've had to patch Slowaris, Linux, HPUX, AIX, and a few flavors of Windoze, and that's just the servers. Then there are patches required for Java and a host of other crap, don't ask me why they don't just use the damn system clock.

      The issue here is not the DST patch, it's the fact that Micro$loth was charging $40K for the Windoze 2000 patch. They justified it because W2K is officially out of support for patches - it's EOL or EOSL, I don't remember which becuase I pay very little attention to Windoze server issues.

    13. Re:Screw 'em by VertigoAce · · Score: 1

      And that is a significant part of the problem in this case. When you made an appointment for March 20th at 10am back six months ago before your computer was patched, the software converted that time to UTC before it stored it. Now you've applied the DST patch and your software now thinks that your appointment is at 11am local time.

    14. Re:Screw 'em by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Manually adjust the clock.

      Being in Arizona...don't have this issue...except in the NE corner of the state on the Navajo reservation. It's 1 of the things I enjoy living here for.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    15. Re:Screw 'em by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any *application* that needs updating because of this is just plain broken. UTC is the only safe way to represent time... as has been proven over and over again. When will they learn?

      Updating the timezone files on a Unix OS is trivially easy and can be scripted over ssh normally.

      With Windows it's a *lot* harder because it really doesn't want to use UTC.. it always tries to start from local time and convert to it, and it does in fact get it wrong for about 6 months of the year (known bug, been there since NT4 and still not fixed in Vista - See KB 128126, 129574, 190315).

    16. Re:Screw 'em by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      it's EOL or EOSL, I don't remember which becuase I pay very little attention to Windoze server issues.

      Nah. It's SOL.

      I love Microsoft. First Vista, now this. They're making Sony look skilled at navigating the shoals of corporate error. Of course, it is important to remember who really fucked up: Congress, with this whole idiotic idea.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    17. Re:Screw 'em by consorting-with-daem · · Score: 1

      Practice/Theory delta. As another poster replied, it's the clients. Everything has to be done in a precise order or the pooch is screwed. You can see for yourself here http://support.microsoft.com/gp/dst_topissues

      There are two registry keysets: Timezones and localtime.
      If all you have are 2k servers humping MSSQL and print services, it can all be done with reg scripts and $4k is a ripoff.

      The Exchange guys where I work took the *easy* way out and upgraded to AD 2k3 and Exchange 2k7. It was cheaper that way.

      --
      Sent from my Amiga 500
    18. Re:Screw 'em by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      And they should all get their DST info from the zone files.

    19. Re:Screw 'em by 313373_bot · · Score: 1

      I believe it is. I remember there was a hack http://weblogs.asp.net/dfindley/archive/2006/06/20 /Set-hardware-clock-to-UTC-on-Windows-_2800_or-how -to-make-the-clock-work-on-a-Mac-Book-Pro_2900_.as px to use UTC, but it didn't work quite right http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/09/ 02/224672.aspx. (Sorry about the long links, couldn't figure out how to do it properly.)

      --
      ^[:q!
    20. Re:Screw 'em by Khabok · · Score: 1

      Way to go.

      My Mac is already patched.

    21. Re:Screw 'em by Keaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      The steps it took for me to patch an MS Exchange server were the same steps it took to get to a RHEL 4 box patched, the only difference was that the RHEL patch took and needed no reboot.

    22. Re:Screw 'em by NoMoreFood · · Score: 1

      For Windows NT and later the patch is simple as two registry keys. I ran the 'approved' service pack and exported the two keys that changed. (Since I did this before Microsoft published the relevant registry keys on their website, I had to use a registry capture program to find the affected keys).

      The same generated registry patch works on all Windows NT+ versions of Windows. However, you may have to convert file back from Unicode to get it to work on Windows NT. For me, the problem was convincing the anal-retentive management that this 'fix' was legitimate. Took me 15 minutes. $4000? Screw you Microsoft.

    23. Re:Screw 'em by Caduceus1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You did know that not only did you have to update the zone stuff in Linux, but reboot as well, or at least restart all applications that make use of it (including syslog, apache, etc.)? Some vendors seem to have forgotten that bit of info in their instructions. We did some independent research to find out that updating the zoneinfo files alone wasn't enough - and then we started to see updated instructions from at least one vendor, where they tacked on the need to reboot...

      --
      rm /dev/mem
      Sci-Fi Storm
    24. Re:Screw 'em by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      As a Brit who had liked the fact that windows updated my clock between British Summer Time and Greenwich Mean Time for years could someone explain why this is suddenly an issue for anyone?

      Has someone in some part of the world just realised that it gets dark earlier in the winter?

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    25. Re:Screw 'em by jZnat · · Score: 1

      UTC isn't affected by DST.

      Unless I'm misunderstanding the problem here...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    26. Re:Screw 'em by Skater · · Score: 1

      No, but all the old meetings will be wrong! They installed the patch on our XP Pro machines at work the other day, and all of our meetings for those three weeks are now one hour later in our calendars. (Lotus Notes, by the way.) I'm not sure whom to blame - MS or Lotus - but it's pretty annoying and someone deserves a good slap across the face for that programming idiocy.

      After they installed the patch I put another meeting in the calendar only to have it show up at the correct time those weeks. So now I've got a mix of both correct meeting times and wrong meeting times on the same screen and no way to discern between the two (other than the fact that I know when the meetings are supposed to be held).

    27. Re:Screw 'em by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Can't you change to runlevel 1 and then back into whichever one you were using to restart all the necessary programs without rebooting?

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    28. Re:Screw 'em by GraZZ · · Score: 1

      Any *application* that needs updating because of this is just plain broken. UTC is the only safe way to represent time... as has been proven over and over again. When will they learn? The counter-example is Java. Java uses its own internal lookup tables to determine when DST should start and end for various timezones. They're attempting to provide the same level of DST service as an operating system for their virtual machine; I guess they're not trusting all underlying OSs to be the same in this regards.

      And in a complex environment, you don't just upgrade the Java that your applications use. You upgrade in a testing environment, do regression tests then deploy to production. This has been weeks of work so far for my team; it is not a trivial amount of work. And we're in Canada, which is only picking up the DST change to stay in line with the States. Thanks Mr. Bush.

      I agree that outside of that, applications that try require patching are hilariously poorly programmed. I know of a certain library implementing date functionality that some people in my industry are using that requires you to recompile your app against a new version and test :)
    29. Re:Screw 'em by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't like to RTFA. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to change the date on which daylight saving time starts. Just one more example of congress and the president's short sightedness.

    30. Re:Screw 'em by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      We care.

    31. Re:Screw 'em by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Second, you have to do it in the right order, at about the same time. If you update the server, then clients who schedule appointments will be off until they update.


      Er, I'll admit I'm not entirely well versed on the issue, but don't you just have to deal with this at some point in the year+ since it was announced? It seems like there would be no possible issue if you fixed ahead of time and just made sure all N thousand machines under your control were patched before DST in 2007.
      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    32. Re:Screw 'em by LivinFree · · Score: 1

      Well, and glibc... Don't forget that.

      I think the big difference here is that the TZ and glibc packages have been a part of the standard upgrade path for some time now, whereas the MS patches are still optional (for 2k3, XP, etc.)

      By the way, why hasn't anyone (so far in my reading - I may come across others later in other threads,) pointed out that Win2k is quite old. Sure, some companies are still maintaining NT, and who knows what's going to happen to them, but come on. Do *you* go 6 or 7 or more years without upgrading any packages and wonder why it's such a PITA to upgrade? Now add support to the mix - how long should a company supply free support? Heck, try getting support for free software that's really old, like Legacy Fedora, without the fix being "Hey, upgrade, you jerk."

    33. Re:Screw 'em by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Windows keeps the hardware clock on local time.

      Local Redmond, WA time, that is.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    34. Re:Screw 'em by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Local Redmond, WA time, that is.

      No, local wall-clock time. Microsoft thought it would be confusing if the Windows time and the time in the BIOS were different. So, every Windows machine is set to local wall-clock time.

      > Pissed about Katrina? Join CERT

      CERT is already an acronym. Pick a different one.

      --
      My other car is first.
    35. Re:Screw 'em by VertigoAce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I should have been more clear. The problem is that people don't schedule appointments in UTC. I don't send a meeting request for March 20th at 15:00 UTC. I want my meeting to happen at a particular local time. If the definition of local time (including DST dates) changes between when I set the meeting and when it actually happens, the UTC time for that meeting also needs to change.

      To add to the problems, different computers and programs have been patched at different times. What if someone with a patched computer sent out a meeting request that had the UTC time and I received it on a computer without it? My computer shows the meeting an hour off from the sender's computer. When I now patch my computer, I don't know whether to adjust the meeting time or not (assuming I didn't know the patch status of the sender's computer). There's not much you can do to avoid these issues, so people are trying to get the word out that you should confirm times for the next few weeks instead of assuming the program is displaying the intended time.

    36. Re:Screw 'em by toddestan · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the way its done. It's a holdover from the old DOS days, back then DOS computers generally weren't networked, and thus setting them to local time made sense.

    37. Re:Screw 'em by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, it seems that Apple is only patching 10.3 and later. Those running 10.2 and earlier are SOL. Windows 2000 is a few years older than 10.2.

    38. Re:Screw 'em by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Your missing the point. Its a tiny patch.

      The patch for XP should be pretty much the same for 2k.

    39. Re:Screw 'em by Nethead · · Score: 1

      CERT is already an acronym. Pick a different one.

      https://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/about.shtm
      The Community Emergency Response Team concept was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) in 1985.

      Wikipedia:
      CERT as in CERT/CC, formerly an acronym for Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center but CERT is no longer an acronym[1] and is known as simply "CERT". The CERT Coordination Center was created by DARPA in November 1988 after the Morris worm struck.

      No, you go find another (non)acronym.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    40. Re:Screw 'em by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Or were you talking about:

      Wikipedia:

      A Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT), or Special Emergency Response Team for Correction is a team of highly trained correction officers in the United States tasked with responding to incidents,riots,cell extractions or disturbances in prisons, possibly involving uncooperative or violent inmates. CERT team members are required to be contactable and available to respond at all times. CERT is founded upon a team concept and is made up of highly motivated and experienced Correction Officers.

      Which from personal experience are not that highly trained. I had a job, as a federal inmate, of picking up the unspent rounds that they dropped at the firing range (and not talking about it.)

      (since you all are wondering, my crime was 18USC1029c, (phracking))

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    41. Re:Screw 'em by pyrbrand · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I think you're confused. Windows NT based OSes at least (and I assume Win9x as well) keep track of time in # of seconds since Midnight January 1st, 1970 UTC just like like any C-based OS would. Check msdn if you don't believe me: GetSystemTime

      The issue is only relevant for applications which need to do things in local time such as Outlook appointments or financial transactions where the user interacts in local time.

      In any case, the title is extremely misleading. Any product still in support has a free patch. Only out of support products have pay fixes, as per their license agreements.

    42. Re:Screw 'em by timster · · Score: 1

      Oh, the answer is simple. Based on studies done back in the '50s, it's believed that moving the clocks forward for more of the year saves energy. Enough energy, in fact, that within a million years the change will have paid for an ENTIRE DAY of the war in Iraq. And people are complaining that the previous session of Congress didn't do anything!

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    43. Re:Screw 'em by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, the persons really at fault couldn't possibly be the braindead fuckwits who changed daylight savings time knowing full well it would require us to touch every computer system in North America...

    44. Re:Screw 'em by Znork · · Score: 1

      "There's not much you can do to avoid these issues"

      Sure there is. How about next time someone comes up with the idea to change 'time' we just stick'em in the loony bin with the rest of their fellow 'timetravellers' and tell anyone who wants to 'save daylight' they can get up an hour earlier. Which is what they're doing anyway.

    45. Re:Screw 'em by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
      Redhat's instructions for RHEL updates had it. But any decent admin knows that you have to restart (or HUP or USR1 ) daemons when you have modified the config files. :)

      Once updated, any application relying on /etc/localtime will need to be restarted. The easiest solution would be to reboot the system to ensure that all applications have been updated.
      http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_85_9951
    46. Re:Screw 'em by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      What has happened is the time change has registered as being a new time zone, so the time is sort of correctly stored you just have to adjust the time zone for those appointments.

      I though the was plenty of software out there to automatically adjust the time on PC using Internet time servers, so why would anybody spend there money with those greedy ass wipes at M$.

      This piece of software http://www.users.on.net/~johnson/internode/ provides all you need, if you are with the right ISP.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    47. Re:Screw 'em by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Idiocy is thinking that you can just tell people to get up an hour earlier and that will magically fix our energy problems.

    48. Re:Screw 'em by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Really? So if you ask Linux what time a meeting was last year sometime in July, it will give the correct answer? And if you ask it the time March 31st this year, it will also give the correct answer?

      FWIW, every time I've installed a Linux machine it stored local time on the hardware clock also. You're usually given the option of which format to use..

      I don't think you understand the full nature of the problem.

    49. Re:Screw 'em by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "WIW, every time I've installed a Linux machine it stored local time on the hardware clock also. You're usually given the option of which format to use.."

      You are always given the option to use local *instead* of UTC, which is the standard on all unix-like systems. And you know why? Because it's well known that all well behaved OSs store time as UTC (and linux is a well behaved system to this regard). But there's quite a famous PC OS that is not well behaved, and it's well known that Linux usually has to coexist with that other famous PC OS. So the only reason Linux asks you if you want to store time as local is because Windows! It's because there's no other way to have the fiction that on a multiboot environment both windows and linux show the proper local time.

      "I don't think you understand the full nature of the problem."

      I don't think *you* understand the full nature of the problem, which, once again, it's that Windows is crap and tries to force its crapness down your throat even when you are not using windows.

    50. Re:Screw 'em by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I want my meeting to happen at a particular local time"

      You are right there *is* a problem, you are wrong you want a meeting happening always at local time. There are two scenarios: one of them will be avoided by using a sensible system that interanlly manages times always as UTC (as everybody does *except* Microsoft); the other just can't have a satisfactory answer. Let see them:

      1) A multiconference is apointed among a guy in New York, other in Milano and a third one in Canberra on JUN/21/2007 9:00 London time. It only makes sense having this conference apointed GMT/UTC. If it happens that Milano starts summer savings time you will want the Milano guy connecting one hour later per his local time, not change all others because of his local change.

      2) You have an appointment with your doctor on JUN/21/2007 9:00 local time. No matter how crazy local time goes, you still will want your doctor to recieve you at 9 o'clock that day -except, of course, that you both were so used to managing UTC instead of local time that it made more sense to move your appointment just as it would happen on the first scenario.

      Now, for every simple programatic solution you can only take into account one scenario or the other, not both of them at the same time. Which one the OS vendor should take? It's clear to me that the obvious choice is the first one. If, for instance, Oklahoma state comes crazy regarding its local time, it should stay as a local Oklahoma problem if any, and shouldn't "leak" anywhere else. You can get this by always internally storing time as UTC. That's not only my conclusion; it's the conclusion reached by all OS vendors -with the exception of Microsoft, of course.

    51. Re:Screw 'em by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Microsoft windows was designed for a personal computer, single user with no networking capability, and a personal computer has no need to be aware of other timezones. This problem is a result of that fundamental view-point along with all the security problems of trying to change from a personnel perspective to a networked perspective. Every sane operating system was designed to network, multi-user, and multi-task deep in their kernel.

      Microsoft has a serious problem now, Vista runs in LUA , Limited User Account, mode and this breaks most legacy software which only runs in admin privileged accounts. The pain and suffering invovled in switching from WinXP running in admin to Vista's more manditory LUA is about the same as switching to a Mac or Linux, and people are thinking real seriously about alternatives; this timezone cluster-fuck comes at a bad time for them.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    52. Re:Screw 'em by eraser.cpp · · Score: 1

      Exchange does store dates in UTC.

    53. Re:Screw 'em by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 1

      You've spent weeks of work so far trying to make Java happy with the DST problems, and you don't think that's broken?

    54. Re:Screw 'em by Degrees · · Score: 1
      The reason it is a pain is that months ago, people started populating their calendars with meetings in Exchange/Notes/GroupWise for the time period that has been screwed with by the Department of Enegy. Those meetings are typically stored as UTC with an offset.

      So you are mostly correct - if we patched up, then we wouldn't be stressing out now - but we would have had to patch up many months ago. IIRC the change didn't become official until last August (which is an excuse, and sounds like it - but there it is).

      Many people didn't patch until a month ago, and we now have a mix of meetings on the calendar. Some are correct, some need to be adjusted by an hour.

      Thankfully for me, GroupWise stores the DST offset* with the meeting**, and Novell released a beta tool to use that DST info to auto-adjust the meetings for us.


      * The DST offset had to be extended to "UTC -8 where -8 applies on First Sunday in April" or "UTC -8 where -8 applies on Second Sunday in March".

      **Mostly - depends on the client used to create the meeting. For example, if the meeting was scheduled on a BlackBerry or Treo, those don't put the DST info in with the meeting. Same is true of old GroupWise clients (and yes some places have not upgraded).

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    55. Re:Screw 'em by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      You are always given the option to use local *instead* of UTC, which is the standard on all unix-like systems.

      And in the installs I've done, using local time is the default.

      And you know why?

      Because the distro wanted to give you a choice.

      Because it's well known that all well behaved OSs store time as UTC (and linux is a well behaved system to this regard).

      So linux that stores time as local is not well behaved? I'm sorry, who appointed you as the judge of what MY computer should be doing?

      But there's quite a famous PC OS that is not well behaved, and it's well known that Linux usually has to coexist with that other famous PC OS.

      What, linux can't figure out time properly? Everything has to match what it does exactly?

      So the only reason Linux asks you if you want to store time as local is because Windows! It's because there's no other way to have the fiction that on a multiboot environment both windows and linux show the proper local time.

      Wow, you pulled this one out of your ass, didn't you?

      I don't think *you* understand the full nature of the problem, which, once again, it's that Windows is crap and tries to force its crapness down your throat even when you are not using windows.

      M$ blows; they can't code their way out of a bag!111!!11 WAAA MY OS OF CHOICE ISN'T THE ONLY ONE USED!

      I guess Linux is too stupid to handle such a simple thing as DST and such. After all, it shouldn't matter what is stored on the local computer. BTW, Windows will be handling this just fine; the patch is meant to put the new rules into place, and to keep a correct history that when DST starts and ends has changed. It goes a bit beyond what is stored on the local hardware clock (and that doesn't affect other computers on the network at all).

      AS to the choice to store local time; I prefer it. Why? Because 99% of the time, I don't care about anything but local time.

    56. Re:Screw 'em by LivinFree · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how small it is. What about the same small patch for Win98 or 95 or 3.11? It's small, right? Why not give it to everyone for free?

      That's not how software development works - it's still a very expensive undertaking in engineering a fix, testing, QA, review, release, communication, etc. MS doesn't have the luxury of someone like Legacy Fedora, and say "well, it should work, but if not, *shrug*." They have an expectation of quality, that if they F that up, as they have in the past, the Slashdot crowd will go nuts and post big stories with lots of discussion and useless tags (like defectivebydesign - WTF? That's for DRM, what does a TZ update have to do with that?)

    57. Re:Screw 'em by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Ok, so do it this way.
      1. Set up an NTP-server, make sure it had the correct time and create a script/application/whatever to make it handle daylightsaving correctly.
      2. Turn of automatic daylight saving on all computers and servers.
      3. Make all computers and servers sync their time against the NTP-server.

      Problem solved.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    58. Re:Screw 'em by OnlineAlias · · Score: 1


      You completely misunderstand. It isn't the UTC/NTP that is the problem, it is the client's representation of that time that is the problem. One must patch, because a machine's client interface still thinks that the time hasn't changed yet, and all logs and mail will be represented as one hour off. Exactly down to the millisecond 1 hour off, but still off. This becomes a much bigger deal when talking about Exchange, because Exchange stores time in 4 different places, and all of the tables and messages must be corrected.

    59. Re:Screw 'em by OnlineAlias · · Score: 1

      As another engineer working on this, you forgot to mention Java (yes, Java), Oracle, z/OS, every Linux appliance known to man, Firewalls, IDP's, Cisco, most RADIUS, EMC SANs, and even, wait for it, wait for it...Google Appliances....

    60. Re:Screw 'em by OnlineAlias · · Score: 1

      Ya, we thought about that early on. Except for the pesky problem of sending data to different time zones. Now everything is off for them... Problem not solved.

    61. Re:Screw 'em by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Oh so this is just a M$ money for jam issue. Not using exchange any more and the weird crap that program can through up at times, it has become a forgotten issue.

      So how come those victims of M$ don't crack up and post it up all over the place in retaliation.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    62. Re:Screw 'em by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Now I remember the quick fix. I discovered it when setting up a new PC and setting the incorrect time zone but the correct local time and allowing it to connect to exchange server, when you discover the fault and adjust the time zone you screw up all the appointments.

      To fix it you reverse the fault, change back to the original time zone and adjust the time so it is correct for that time zone and then you change to the correct time zone which automatically adjusts the time.

      So quick and dirty fix, adjust your time zone to a different regional time zone that suits, do not adjust you local time it will occur automatically (and you should be able to script it on the server to adjust all the clients), an hour earlier or latter time zone and in this case remember to do it four times.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    63. Re:Screw 'em by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Exchange does store dates in UTC."

      Maybe but then, who tells Exchange what current time is? The OS. And the OS that Exchange runs on makes the extrange assumption that in order to move local time by one hour it must move forward or backwards computer time by one hour which make time gaps (and problems) appear.

    64. Re:Screw 'em by redcane · · Score: 1

      I think you'd be surprised how often you care about other time zones without knowing it. Of course it's generally handled for you, as is the miracle of computing. I'll tell you now though, I can't see any sane reason not to store time information in UTC. It's a definitely defined time. Local time can vary (through legislation etc), but you still know what time is meant by UTC. Oh, and he did not pull the multiboot thing out of his ass. I remember how much of a pain in the ass it was to have windows constantly pull the wrong time when the hardware clock was GMT/UTC.... At least linux gives you the option of either, last I read windows failed to work with GMT when people attempted to make it do so.

    65. Re:Screw 'em by Skater · · Score: 1

      Times change. In this case, literally. Computers must be able to adapt.

    66. Re:Screw 'em by nobaloney · · Score: 1
      The issue here is not the DST patch, it's the fact that Micro$loth was charging $40K for the Windoze 2000 patch. They justified it because W2K is officially out of support for patches - it's EOL or EOSL, I don't remember which becuase I pay very little attention to Windoze server issues.


      Actually it's more like SOL :) .

    67. Re:Screw 'em by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Wait until you get into the more 'web-based' options in Microsoft's products. SharePoint (2007) for example stores all dates in Pacific time if you don't specify anything. I was expecting either local time or GMT or follow whatever the computer/SQL database has set, but no, if you don't specify it, it uses Pacific.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    68. Re:Screw 'em by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It's another case of getting screwed by too much backwards compatability.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    69. Re:Screw 'em by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

      Yes, we do now, after one of our overzealous installers went out and installed the new timezone rpm on a whole bunch of customer SuSE Linux machines without rebooting (or much prior testing). This for some reason caused all of our Java based apps to revert to using GMT until the machines were rebooted, which therefore caused a bunch of financial calculations and postings to be screwed up.

      The morals of the story are that you should always test all patches before installing them on customer's machines, no matter how innocuous they may seem, and if you install the updated timezone rpm on SuSE Linux you have to reboot or any Java apps will instantly have their times off, not just be wrong when the DST change hits.

      PS Would love to see those updated instructions.

      --
      Nevermore.
    70. Re:Screw 'em by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

      Would love to agree with that trivially easy statement except that what we have experienced is that you have to reboot SuSE Linux after applying their timezone patch or else the dates are instantly reverted to GMT in all Java apps which causes major problems in our financial apps. That proves to be a less than trivial task when scheduling updates on hundres of 24/7 servers in 48 states.

      --
      Nevermore.
    71. Re:Screw 'em by racermd · · Score: 1

      As one of the guys address this problem on our network of nearly 8000 Windows desktops, I can attest to the problem the DST rules change causes. There are three critical issues to address from a Microsoft point of view:

      1: Exchange hotfix - Exchange, itself, needs to know how to handle local time(s) so it can process messages and calendar items appropriately.

      2: OS Hotfix - Probably the most important one of all. Even computers that aren't in the U.S. need to get patched due to the fact that they still need to communicate with systems that are in the U.S. This hotfix is simply some registry entries that tell Windows how to calculate DST for any given time zone. You don't need a Micorosoft-provided hotfix for this, either. All you really need is the registry information. Microsoft provides this free of charge on their own website. I leave it as an exercise to the reader if they want to find it (we did, and it works rather well, thank you). We rolled our own patch with some scripts and it turned out nicely. Didn't need weeks of planning or multiple versions, either. So far, the official hotfix from Microsoft has gone through at least 2 revisions that I'm aware of, and probably more that I'm not aware of.

      3: Outlook calendar re-basing - If your Outlook calendar has entries in the extended DST window, those entries will be a hour off once you adjust Exchange and/or your Windows clocks. The calendar items in that window will need to be adjusted for the modified DST rules. Microsoft does offer a tool for more recent version of Outlook, but you'll either need to pay them to get it for the older versions or just deal with it. The recommended solution? Print your calendar for those 3 weeks in spring and 1 week in the fall and manually adjust them. In a worst-case scenario, people will show up an hour early or late to their meetings. Hardly the end of the world.

      The biggest problem is that Microsoft didn't really start pushing this issue until about 6 weeks ago. They're still releasing new versions of the Outlook calendar time zone update tool. They just don't seem all that prepared. They're scrambling to get fixes out the door to customers as we all run them and discover how crappy they're written. There are some things that Microsoft does well (yes, I said it), but patches just doesn't seem to be in that category.

      Then again, there are a number of other products that need patches for the DST 2007 rules and still aren't ready for deployment at all. I think I remember a Blackberry patch causing some catastrophic problems...

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    72. Re:Screw 'em by mink · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call a change to date/time innocuous (especially when in a environment where financial transactions happen). On the matter you mention, Java also has DST updates if you happen to be using certain calandaring and other functions.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    73. Re:Screw 'em by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Of course not!! Stop giving all credit to microsoft!!

      Everyone knows Al Gore invented NTP, you insensitive clod!

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    74. Re:Screw 'em by GraZZ · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant that as the counter-example to UTC being the only safe way to store dates. Doesn't matter if you store in UTC on Java, DST is still biting you in the ass :)

    75. Re:Screw 'em by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      What, you never heard of Wild Bill Hickup?

  2. Go Linux! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's hard to say this without sounding like a zealot, but these kinds of things are nothing but good for Free Software. This patch should be nothing more than an edit to a single configuration file (and if it's not, then that's another problem), but you can't download that change freely or give it to your friends? I can understand - even if I disagree - with not giving away your applications. I cannot be made to understand, though, not giving away trivial bugfixes.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Go Linux! by InsaneGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there actually a patch from Redhat/Suse/etc for systems that are as old as Win2k available? This really is about getting one from the original vendor, there are a number of different free ones available for Win2k but they don't come from MS which tends to be the kicker for some highly touchy organizations (ones that tend to be audited quite often, etc). Regarding Linux, it's basically in the exact same position; only I don't believe that can get a fix for Redhat 7.2 from the vendor, I could download/write my own which would be the equivalent of installing one of the non-MS provided Win2k DST fixes.

    2. Re:Go Linux! by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure there is.

      On the other hand, if there isn't, any half-assed geek could write one and distribute it for free.

      As the guy said, this is -good- for FOSS. It highlights the kind of BS that you'll never have to put up with from FOSS.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Go Linux! by kernelpanicked · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would be wrong. If you check the last few updates fedora-legacy made to RedHat 7.2 and 7.3's glibc, the fix is already there. I work for a web host, where there are still quite a few of these old machines left kicking so yes I had to verify this.

      --
      Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
    4. Re:Go Linux! by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your post tells me you didn't really even read it.

      On the other hand, if there isn't, any half-assed geek could write one and distribute it for free. You mean a situation exactly like free one for Win2K that a geek wrote up and distributes for free? http://www.intelliadmin.com/blog/2007/01/unofficia l-windows-2000-daylight.html
    5. Re:Go Linux! by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      Not to be argumentative but that isn't an official fix from Redhat. It came from a group outside of Redhat who took up continued support for it (until they closed down last month), basically just like the intelliadmin for Win2K.

    6. Re:Go Linux! by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      No reason why you cant just stick the new zone info files in to the old OS.

    7. Re:Go Linux! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Is there actually a patch from Redhat/Suse/etc for systems that are as old as Win2k available?

      Sun offers patches for Solaris 8.

      Heck, last week I found some Documentation discussing manual workarounds for Java 1.1 (Written around 2005, when several nations first passed their DST changes); although I can't find the link now, and I think you need a Sun Support Contract to view the documentation .

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    8. Re:Go Linux! by InsaneGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you think that it matters that it's unofficial support provided by Redhat employee's on the side to an audit company? Having dealt with auditors before I'm going to say no.

    9. Re:Go Linux! by kernelpanicked · · Score: 1

      There's a very good reason. RedHat 7.2,7.3 and 8 had the zoneinfo stuff in glibc. RedHat 9 and up have a split off package called tzdata.

      --
      Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
    10. Re:Go Linux! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Modern distros, I assume, can be updated with a new package.

      I have some old redhat boxen, and my desktop is still Mandrake 10.2. So I had to do it manually.

      It's this simple:

      1. download the latest tzdata (ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/ works)
      2. untar it somewhere (you'll want to make your own directory, this archive has a lot of stuff in the root)
      3. #zic -d /tmp/zoneinfo northamerica (or whatever zones you need)
      4. #cp -af /tmp/zoneinfo/* /usr/share/zoneinfo/
      5. #ln -sf /usr/share/zoneinfo/$yourzone /etc/localtime (ie: EST5EDT, CST6DT, MST7MDT, PST8PDT)

      Test it with 'zdump -v /etc/localtime | grep 2007'. You should see something like this:

      /etc/localtime Sun Mar 11 06:59:59 2007 UTC = Sun Mar 11 01:59:59 2007 EST isdst=0 gmtoff=-18000
      /etc/localtime Sun Mar 11 07:00:00 2007 UTC = Sun Mar 11 03:00:00 2007 EDT isdst=1 gmtoff=-14400
      /etc/localtime Sun Nov 4 05:59:59 2007 UTC = Sun Nov 4 01:59:59 2007 EDT isdst=1 gmtoff=-14400
      /etc/localtime Sun Nov 4 06:00:00 2007 UTC = Sun Nov 4 01:00:00 2007 EST isdst=0 gmtoff=-18000
    11. Re:Go Linux! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Is there actually a patch from Redhat/Suse/etc for systems that are as old as
      > Win2k available?

      You don't need a "patch". All you need is a zoneinfo file. The format is the same for all Linux distributions as well as Cygwin, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, Tru64, UnixWare. and OpenVMS. The files are available at ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/ as well as many other places.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    12. Re:Go Linux! by Cramer · · Score: 1

      So? Overwrite the conflicting files... --force or rpm2cpio directly into place.

    13. Re:Go Linux! by nikolajsheller · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say this without sounding like a Zealot, but: "My life for Aiur!".

  3. free patches are available by ceresur · · Score: 5, Informative

    We are using this patch at my organization for all our Win2k and Win2k Server boxes out there (running legacy apps that we don't need to upgrade). http://www.intelliadmin.com/blog/2007/01/unofficia l-windows-2000-daylight.html

    1. Re:free patches are available by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft themselves also offer a free solution for Windows 2000 servers. Perhaps this takes a bit more work than an official patch would, but if you've got so many 2000 servers that you'd consider dropping $4k on a patch, chances are you've got Active Directory or at least an admin with the skills to script a rollout of a reg file with this fix.

    2. Re:free patches are available by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm posting this as an A/C to protect my company.
      Bill? Is that you?
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    3. Re:free patches are available by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Took me all of 5 minutes to update 15 Windows 2000 systems using the MS scripts. Granted, it took me 10 minutes to read the entire article and copy/paste the stuff.

    4. Re:free patches are available by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      This is all I used. Copy-paste-save-copy-paste-save-copy-paste-save, set as startup script for Win2k systems.

      It took me all of 20 minutes. Total cost: $0.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  4. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Funny

    Put on your tinfoil hat. The more sane explanation is that Bush needed a way to say "he is saving the environment" without appropriating any money, and certainly not taking money away from an Iraq occupation. However, if you insist on brining Microsoft into every conspiracy, go ahead. But can I ask you give me the lithium you aren't taking? I can sell it for a few bucks.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  5. Really inaccurate story. by pythas · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not $4000 per product, it's $4000 for ALL the products

    They also provide a variety of workarounds (registry files you can apply, and scripts to apply to a large number of machines remotely) for Windows 2000. If you don't like that, there's unofficial patches as well (http://www.intelliadmin.com/blog/2007/01/unoffici al-windows-2000-daylight.html)

    Yay for overblown stories!

    1. Re:Really inaccurate story. by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the system clock doesn't automatically update for DST. The OS does performs the update to the clock. This is the first problem. The second problem is that yes, a majority of programs do just use the system clock. The problem comes in with scheduling software like Outlook and Exchange. These programs store the time based off UTC so that appointments are correctly displayed for different time zones. The problem is that when the appointment is created the time is calculated as UTC. So any old appointments for the new DST time period are now an hour late because UTC doesn't change your local time does. The patches for Outlook and Exchange first fix the issue so that any new appointments are scheduled for the correct time. Then they also update to the correct UTC for any appointments in the effected time period.

      Finally Microsoft had a patch released for Windows a long time ago that fixed this issue just like Apple. (Un)fortunately(?) Apple doesn't have a tenth of the deployments of a Calendaring suite as Microsoft does. This is where the problem is. If the problem was just that the system clock was an hour slow until someone updated it, it would be a non issue.

    2. Re:Really inaccurate story. by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where is the free patch for Apple's OLDER OSes?

      MS has free patches for all current OSes as well.

      MS wins this round.

      And "System Clock"? You mean the thing on the motherboard that ususally knows knows NOTHING about times zones or DST? And if it does then ALSO requires a patch to work right now? How will that help in any way? :(

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  6. Wow, thieves by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    $4000 for a patch that modifies one line in the registry? That's gotta be the slickest scam ever, especially since there are a ton of manual fixes out there on the innurnet if you care to google a bit. People who are worried can always hire a computer professional to do it for a tenth of the price, I'm sure.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Wow, thieves by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      MS themselves provide a registry editing based fix for this - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914387

      This service is not the same, this is actual patches to the applications for those that dont want to make the fixes any other way. By the sound of it, this is quite generous - the $4,00 charge only applies to applications out of their 5 year support period.

    2. Re:Wow, thieves by jelizondo · · Score: 1

      I was planning to charge only half of what Microsoft does you insensitive unprofessional clod!

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    3. Re:Wow, thieves by DogDude · · Score: 1

      If you could post info about a professional admin willing to do this to all of our computers for $400, I'd be very grateful.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:Wow, thieves by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Depending on your location, and type of network, I would be happy to.
      of course, I would be using the unofficial patch (http://www.intelliadmin.com/blog/2007/01/unoffici al-windows-2000-daylight.html) that costs nothing, but hey! free money is nice.
      If you have a problem with win2k because of microsoft's efforts to kill it (like not releasing patches like this, making software that is allegedly incompatible (like AOE3), you can count on there being a free patch out there to fix the problem.
      Some of the designed-in hardware incompatabilities don't have a workaround yet, but....

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    5. Re:Wow, thieves by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      You value your time at $0/hr?

      If not, then it isn't free money.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:Wow, thieves by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Nah, some guy said you could find somebody to do it at 1/10 of the price $4K. This guy is offering to update my entire network for $400.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:Wow, thieves by iPaul · · Score: 1

      With all the right parts.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    8. Re:Wow, thieves by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Like I said, depends on the network.
      I've been the guy in charge of a 7000 system network (Military) that was easier to admin than a 120 system network (bellsouth). If you have a hosed network, then $4000 bucks wouldn't be worth it; if you have a decent network management infrastructure in place, that would be $400 for probably less than 4 hours of work sitting in my home office.
      But I'm retired from such things, so I probably wouldn't do it.
      But seriously, if your IT guys are saying they can't do this easily & for free, you may need to find some new IT guys/gals. Or maybe just 1 older IT guy/gal.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  7. Re:Bastages. by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is just for Windows 2000 and products from that same era. XP and stuff for it shouldn't be a problem.

  8. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey - I don't have to believe in conspiracies in order to spread rumors about them. ;-)

  9. Re:Whoa by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real question: Do you like George Bush [...] Or do you hate Bush [...]?

    No, the real, real question is: why are you so desperate to drag political bullshit into every story? Love him or hate him, GWB has absolutely nothing to do with how much Microsoft charges for a patch.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  10. Re:Whoa by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because IT staffs across the U.S. and Canada (imagine the rest of the world that does business here also) have to certify millions of servers and workstations for a feel good piece of legislation. Instead of real efforts to wean us off foreign oil, we settle for this joke. And a significant percentage of my coworkers think it is great -- keeps them employed.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  11. Hang on a second.. by testednegative · · Score: 1

    Why are they charging that amount for a patch? What gives them the right to charge that price to fix a problem with a product that a consumer has already bought and should have support for. Why is this not just distributed on windows update as a patch/fix ? Am I missing something here ?

    1. Re:Hang on a second.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you read the article you'll see the $4K is for unsupported (obsolete) software.

    2. Re:Hang on a second.. by master0ne · · Score: 1

      what gives THEM the RIGHT? did you by chance read the EULA While installing windows, the line that states ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! MAKE YOUR TIME! gives them the right... but seriously, when you purchased windows OS, you purchased it with the understanding they would support the OS untill a spefic time frame, products prior to XP are now out of the parimary support timeframe, and into extended support, meaning only SECURITY patches will be issued, as this has nothing to do with security it isnt coverd, and they can charge extra for providing that support, or not provide ANY support for it at all, and FORCE many customers to UPGRADE to XP or Vista... (if you can call Vista a upgrade...) so yes they HAVE the right to do it, and you need to read the software licences better before you accept them, or atleast before you complain about what rights they have...

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    3. Re:Hang on a second.. by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      These products are no longer supported by microsoft, I believe Microsoft will support Windows 2000 for a price. You can't think that microsoft will support a product forever for free, I mean could you name me one company that does. This isn't much of a story and only a rather bad attempt at spreading FUD. Microsoft stops free support for seven year old product, new american law requires change to get the correct time to display. Microsoft sees a chance for money, makes a patch then sells patch for a profit.

      I also think the price might be a little higher than necessary to try and move people onto XP or Vista, think about it for $4000 you can get a patch for all your systems. If you only have one or two Windows 2000 or Outlook 2000 systems then you could probably upgrade them for less than the cost of the patch (microsoft gets additional revenue) if you have a large number of machines using outlook 2000 or windows 2000 then the cost per machine for the patch is probably a few dollars and so worth it as it maintains your legacy systems despite unexpected changes (in this case the alteration of DST.) In that case you win as you don't have to either spend ages getting the network sorted out for DST change, pay to upgrade your infrastructure and microsoft gets some extra revenue for providing a service.

    4. Re:Hang on a second.. by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Yet I see clients demanding that someone offer paid support for anything - even if we all know the support is worthless.

      Without support, the buck stops there. With support, there is another link higher up in the chain of blame.

      A company's software support may leave you high and dry, but then you can blame them when the boss asks why something doesn't work. Without it, it's just you.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    5. Re:Hang on a second.. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It's not a problem with their software. Congress passed a law that nobody, save Nostradamus, could have prepared for that fucked with DST. This isn't a "fix" for a problem that they created. It's a "fix" for a problem that Congress created. People upset should contact their Congresspeople as to why we're still dealing with this ridiculously archaic DST system that was designed for an agrarian society, which the US has stopped being a long time ago.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:Hang on a second.. by iPaul · · Score: 1

      True, I suppose my ass was also covered, as well. But here's a story on the other side. I was working at a large systems integrator and needed a C compiler on HPUX for something. They said it would take weeks to get the C compiler purchased and it would have to be purchased by the client, so I suggested GCC. They asked how much that would cost. To which I replied, it's free. Okay, they replied but according to our policy of software licensing and purchasing, blah blah blah ... we need to show we have a legally purchased copy and we must purchase support.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    7. Re:Hang on a second.. by bruceboughton · · Score: 1

      I agree entirely with your point. This article is a load of unfounded FUD.

      However, I don't quite see the logic in your point that, if you have a small number of systems and you decide to upgrade to avoid the cost of the $4000 patch, this is good for Microsoft as it's extra revenue. By definition, avoiding the $4000 cost and upgrading systems for a total cost less than $4000 constitutes less revenue for Microsoft (since you went for the cheaper option of upgrading) assuming you require the DST patch (if you don't, this issue wouldn't cause you to upgrade). Furthermore, by upgrading one might argue Microsoft are losing further revenue since they must now provide free support to you rather than paid-for support (and you paid less to upgrade than to buy the patch). Of course, this could be mitigated by the fact that by upgrading you are staying with Microsoft and will probably buy other products in the future.

      Once again, I agree with your point that Microsoft can do this entirely legitimately (and I do not believe anyone in a corporate setting would wish to deny a company the right to charge for updates to products outside of an agreed contract). Just nitpicking...

    8. Re:Hang on a second.. by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***Why are they charging that amount for a patch?***

      Because they are now obligated to fix a substantial set of problems if the patch doesn't work right. These time of day things are notoriously touchy with unexpected consequences.

      The problem is due to congressional dementia, not to any action of Microsoft's, so MS really is not obligated to fix it for free.

      Nonetheless, I agree this is something that Microsoft could have done for free. The revenue is probably not all that great, and MS could use some customer goodwill. It's not like MS is struggling to make payroll, and it's not like they are widely loved by their customers -- even those beyond the Slashdot universe.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:Hang on a second.. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I bet you expect Sony to come out and update your TV when the new DTV requirements take place too? Or perhaps your car dealership should fix that leaky radiator, after all it's only been 7 years.

      You're missing that the $4,000 offers a patch which includes a tech support line for your company. If you have 50 mission critical servers, you don't want something to go wrong. Unfortunately for you, you already lost tech support because your software is almost 3/4 of a decade old. If you need a free solution. They exist. But don't expect any guarantees.

      You make a lot of assumptions about what microsoft *should* be doing for their customers. This isn't a security patch. This wasn't a flaw on microsoft's part. Windows 2000 would have operated perfectly had the government not made a small change to our time system. Therefore it's not microsoft's obligation to even provide a solution at all.

      Consumers obviously haven't payed for support, or they would be receiving this for free. If you remeber correctly a couple of years ago there was a slashdot article. "Support for Windows 2000 ends, extended support available for a price." or something to that effect. That was your chance to purchase support.

    10. Re:Hang on a second.. by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      What gives them the right to charge that price to fix a problem with a product that a consumer has already bought and should have support for.

      Well, consumer protection laws, for one. They say that software has to be supported for 5 years. Windows 2000 came out in 2000. It was replaced by Windows XP which came out in 2002. It's now 2007. Microsoft no longer has any obligation to support Windows 2000.

      At this point, support is entirely their option. It's a win/win for them. If somebody choses to pay, it's another $4000 in their pocket. If someone choses NOT to pay, and merely takes the much cheaper path of upgrading to XP or Vita, Microsoft wins again, by selling a second product to someone who already owns one.

    11. Re:Hang on a second.. by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      Like the previous Y2K problem, it's not the realities of time measurement that are at fault, whether legislated by the US Congress or the pope several centuries ago, it's a problem of lack of foresight. THAT is what M$ is lacking and THAT is why this kind of shit always seems to happen. Folks in 1980 couldn't see the change of millennia coming? M$ couldn't see the possibility of changes in DST and thus make it relatively simple to change? Bosh.

  12. innovation by Epiphenomenon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one think that $4000 for innovation like this is a small price to pay.

    1. Re:innovation by alienmole · · Score: 1

      I for one do not welcome our innovative $4000-charging overlords.

  13. Down with DST! by astrosmash · · Score: 4, Funny

    That was one expensive piece of pointless legislation.

    I've always felt that if we could harness all of the time and energy software developers and IT departments have spent over the years working on DST-related issues in software and apply it to some other purpose of good, we'd all be driving around in flying cars and taking vacations on the moon by now. It is 2007, after all. You know, the future?

    That's right. I'm blaming the state of the world on DST.

    --
    ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    1. Re:Down with DST! by maxume · · Score: 1

      It is a fun tradition though.

      I have trouble believing it accomplishes much at this point; people use lights all day anyway, so that isn't it, stores keep whatever hours they keep so there isn't any huge reason to keep everybody synchronized, I guess maybe heating. Ah well.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Down with DST! by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Bah, it's not DST's fault. It's that everyone's too lazy to set their computer's time the same way they set their other clocks that this sort of thing happens. Better still, why not just have a single NTP server that pulls atomic time off the internet (pool.ntp.org anyone?) and lets the other computers on the network pull time from it? Much simpler, and accurate, too. Network time FTW.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    3. Re:Down with DST! by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 1
      Probably all that extra programmer time would have resulted in WoW being released earlier and then all progress would have stopped even earlier.

      Seriously, all development in the world has stopped since WoW was released, even if we are slow to notice it. Just look at Vista.

      --
      weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    4. Re:Down with DST! by julesh · · Score: 1

      That's right. I'm blaming the state of the world on DST.

      Actually, I think we should standardise on DST. I mean, I live in the UK, and right now it's getting light at about 7am and dark at about 6pm. If we were on DST, that would be 8am and 7pm, which ties in much better with the way most people want the day to run. It works out the same way almost all of the time.

    5. Re:Down with DST! by theCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do what I do -- protest DST. I grew up in Indiana where they didn't participate in the DST silliness (Indiana recently caved to the peer pressure and now does do the switch). I've since moved to another state that does practice DST. For a few years, I went along with it, but last summer I decided to try not switching. I just got up earlier and mentally subtracted an hour from other people's times. It's a little confusing at times (especially when others send meeting notices that clearly say standard time but they mean daylight time), but otherwise it works very well. At work, I set my TZ variable correctly, and 90% of all the times I see on clocks are as I expect them. I plan on doing the same with this year's summer time.

      The thing I learned most from my experiment, however, is that it takes a lot of will power to get up earlier. Most people simply do not have the will power to get up and be in bed an hour earlier. And sadly, that's the reason we spend so much time, money, and effort on DST. Just to trick lazy people into getting out of bed an hour earlier. It's also the reason why a permanent year round DST (which I've seen some people advocate) is doomed to fail. People would just adjust and do everything an hour later (and then we'd need a 2 hour DST). Only the constant switching keeps them in line.

      So, while I personally despise DST as a ridiculous concept, it does have its uses.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    6. Re:Down with DST! by astrosmash · · Score: 1

      Either way works for me. Or how about we split the difference and move the clocks a half-hour ahead once and for all.

      One thing is certain: the current method of adjusting the time twice a year is the worst and most expensive solution to a very trivial problem, especially in this day and age.

      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    7. Re:Down with DST! by ffsnjb · · Score: 2, Informative

      ntp doesn't help here. ntp only fixes time skew from utc. Your OS is responsible for determining local time and presentation to the user according to their prefs.

      --
      "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
    8. Re:Down with DST! by antdude · · Score: 1

      I hope Congress doesn't decide to revert it back and we repeat this crap again.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    9. Re:Down with DST! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what you're saying is that DST is wasting time, and not saving it?

      (ducks)

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    10. Re:Down with DST! by jZnat · · Score: 1

      And what about the Brits who live in UTC/GMT? They're set for life...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    11. Re:Down with DST! by frause · · Score: 1

      Oh no, it wastes time all right. But it saves daylight! Presumably for a rainy day.

  14. Re:Bastages. by otterpop81 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I don't read enough /., but I don't know why that's the case. Logic would say that all products released before this law was put into place would be affected. XP was released before this law (the law is really recent, right?). By what mechanism (Windows update maybe?) is XP not affected?

  15. Programming practices by unchiujar · · Score: 1

    "That's left companies scrambling for software fixes that change the pre-set DST changes hard-coded in operating systems and applications, including every version of Windows except for the just-released Vista."
    You would think that programmers that hard code (Bad Thing(TM)) would have a hard time getting/staying hired...
    Go figure...

    --
    Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
    1. Re:Programming practices by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      This is a load of BS. Time zone rules are not hard-coded in Windows; the DST rules are just in the registry. The registry is an editable configuration file, just like the zoneinfo configuration files on a Linux system. On Windows, you can edit the time zone rules yourself, and microsoft even provides instructions (and a GUI tool) for doing so if you don't want to deploy a patch.

      MS did not release supported exectuable patches for its out-of-support products, because they don't want to do the QA and support required. I don't think that was a customer-friendly decision, and thier patching process for still-supported products is a horribly documented nightmare. But it is certainly not Microsoft's fault this DST legislation came up inthe first place.

      Other vendors are doing the same sort of thing as Microsoft. I think if you look at Oracle, IBM, etc. you'll see that many of their older out-of-support products don't have DST patches available either. Mobile phone and PDA vendors are amongst the worst offenders in this area.

    2. Re:Programming practices by pid-3 · · Score: 1

      They hard coded the length of a day also. You gone to complain about that?

    3. Re:Programming practices by unchiujar · · Score: 1

      Yes. What if you are you going to use the program on Mars :P

      --
      Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
  16. Re:Bastages. by master0ne · · Score: 1

    all products releast post windows XP SP1 are already for the DST change, the only products that need to be patched are those released at or before the change was announced... aslong as you stick with XP (or god forbid VISTA) than you wont be double tax'ed by microsoft..... Also, as others have mentioned, there are sevral "unofficial" patches that should work just fine, as a it guy, you should be able to test them aganst they system's your planning on implimenting (if they are pre XP) to make sure they wont cause any problems...

    --
    Noone writes jokes in base 13!
  17. Re:Bastages. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Windows XP is still a fully supported system, while Windows 2000 isn't.
    (MS only releases security-related fixes)

  18. there are free utils to patch this by jjeffries · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a free patcher here that I've used on a few 2k machines and one NT4 machine and nothing has blown up thus far.

    First link under "freeware downloads".

    1. Re:there are free utils to patch this by danomac · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind the free patch utility will only patch the Windows 2000 OS, not MS's other software.

      Microsoft, for some stupid reason, decided that Exchange shouldn't follow the OS time and region settings and stores this information internally. If you use something that depends on these internal tables in Exchange (like Outlook Web Access) there are no workarounds. You will have to cough up the $4000 to patch Exchange.

      If you are using Outlook (no web access or other reliant software on Exchange's internal tables) patching the OS and running a tool on Exchange should be enough to fix it. Microsoft lists a [long] workaround, and as the parent states, there is a utility that will patch this for you. One interesting thing to note in Microsoft's workaround is that you have to force a reload of the timezone settings - do this by changing to a different timezone, clicking apply, then setting it back. I have no idea if IntelliAdmin's tool does this for you.

  19. Re:Bastages. by master0ne · · Score: 3, Informative

    XP was released about the same time they considerd changing DST im not sure if XP (orignal unpatched version) was DST compliant, however by the time SP1 was released, they had already decided to change DST in 2007, so many companies have had tons of time to prepair, and now that its upon up, people are just NOW rushing to patch (which could have been done YEARS ago) and making a scene about not being able to get patches, products prior to XP are out of the "primary support" cycle from Microsoft, and as such patches are no longer provided, MS has said they will patch previous products for a price, which is what they are doing (cheeper than they orignally stated too!) none the less, this is a good point for open sorce software, as another poster here said, it should be a simple config file change, easy to patch, if it isnt thats MS's bad coding practices, and as such im sure pretty much all OSS software still being activly developed already has patches avalable...

    --
    Noone writes jokes in base 13!
  20. Nothing to see here. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This just in - company charges money to do work for companies who are using an unsupported suite of products! Film at 11!

    I know in Soviet Russia that work was done for free for the betterment of ones comrades, but this isn't Soviet Russia quite yet. Companies charge you when they provide a service for you.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Hey hey hey. This is Slashdot. There is zero room for common sense and logic. However, knee jerk reactions, Microsoft FUD, and pure speculation is always welcomed.

  21. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a little different. You're comparing a fix for a defective product to a patch to change behavior to fit an unforseeable change in timekeeping logic. And, please note that these products aren't even officially being supported anymore (thus, the service charge).

    I'm not trying to defend MS, but there's no need to make dodgy comparisons... One can surmise that open-source users will likely have an easier time making this change, seeing as they don't have to rely on a corporation to update their binaries.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  22. This is what happens when you have a monopoly by Windcatcher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand that they're charging $4000 for all of the patches, and on all of an enterprise's machines. I also understand that they're choosing to not offer the patch to private users for a nominal fee, nor are they offering the option to buy just this one patch for a lesser price. My response is that this is what you get when you have a monopoly: they can offer whatever they wish -- or, to not put too fine a point on it, choose to NOT offer whatever they wish -- and charge however many limbs they want for it. It's disgusting, and to me particularly offensive. I'm sure there will be rants about the evils of capitalism and such here -- this IS Slashdot, after all -- and I can't really disagree here. I'm about as far to the right as they come and as rabid a capitalist as you'll ever see but this just makes us look bad. Capitalism REQUIRES adequate levels of competition to function properly and what you're seeing here is what happens when that competition is absent.

    1. Re:This is what happens when you have a monopoly by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      How is that a result of monopoly? There are free 3rd party patches that work. Now if Microsoft prevented 3rd party patches, that would be another issue.

    2. Re:This is what happens when you have a monopoly by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      My response is that this is what you get when you have a monopoly: they can offer whatever they wish -- or, to not put too fine a point on it, choose to NOT offer whatever they wish -- and charge however many limbs they want for it.
      Sorry, but MS didn't make this mess. A bunch of dickbags in Washington DC did.

      This has forced them develop software outside of their expectations. Hence, they have to charge their customers more for it.

      Frankly, I think MS should be given kudos for making this a financially painful event. It's going to hurt every software project out there that deals with times across time-zone boundaries, financially, unless they pass it on to their customers.

      The populace of the USA just got a huge bill shifted to them but they'll likely never see it directly.
  23. TZEdit by HeyBob! · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been using tzedit.exe (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914387) for manually updating a few old pc's

    1. Re:TZEdit by gallwapa · · Score: 1

      tzedit indeed has saved us about 50 windows servers. Manual change, but wtf it works and is free

  24. Sun's worse - $10k/server, $150k/max by Fezmid · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want them to update Solaris 7 or earlier, it'll cost you $10,000/server with a cap of $150,000. Highway robbery if you ask me.

    We're just modifying the timezone files with zic.

    As much as I dislike MS, they're not alone in the highway robbery department here.

    1. Re:Sun's worse - $10k/server, $150k/max by devaudio · · Score: 1

      hmm they quoted us 400 a server for solaris 2.6

    2. Re:Sun's worse - $10k/server, $150k/max by bdigit · · Score: 1

      um 10k a server? Are you sure that quote wasn't to migrate you over to solaris 10? It only cost us 400 per server.

    3. Re:Sun's worse - $10k/server, $150k/max by Fezmid · · Score: 1
      10k is what they initially quoted us way back when and it was for the patch only. We tried fighting with them, but they said they couldn't negotiate. I think they lowered the price about 3-4 months ago (probably because nobody was paying the $10k), but I don't know what it went down to because we didn't want it at that point.

      It was definitely per server though, and only for the patch. I'll see if I can dig up the email when I get to work on Monday for the humor value :)

  25. Re:Regedit Anyone? by iPaul · · Score: 1

    Part of it is also the testing. The reason people are being suckered (or "see the value") in spending 4k, is hopefully it was tested on a variety of configurations.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
  26. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by kripkenstein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That congress-Microsoft DST conspiracy theory seems a tad... overboard, to me at least. They do plenty of corrupt things we know about, theorizing about something as odd as this is unnecessary.

    As for the summary saying "it seems a bit pricey for a patch to a product you've already paid for." - well, no, that isn't true. Customers paid for a product and for support for it; the support for Windows 2000 is over, as per the original agreements. They got what they paid for. This is the same issue with any proprietary, closed-source software - the client is left to depend on a single vendor for patches once the official support is over, and can effectively be taken hostage (I wouldn't trust patches from anyone who doesn't have access to all the source code). Microsoft isn't doing anything 'special' here beyond typical closed-source tactics. But those are enough to show the importance of using FOSS.

  27. Accuracy? by nstlgc · · Score: 1

    I know this is Slashdot and all, but you might want to mention this 'fix' is only needed for products that came out in the 2000 batch. So for people running XP, 2003 stuff, this is no issue at all. $4000 is still alot for a product that hasn't reached his end of life status though...

    --
    I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    1. Re:Accuracy? by Keaster · · Score: 1

      ummmm, no, you're wrong. Exchange 2007 is the only M$ product I have yet to patch.

      VMware ESX 3.0.1 is the only OS I have not seen, in a very mixed environment, that has not needed a patch.

    2. Re:Accuracy? by Shados · · Score: 1

      They're talking about the PAID fix. The article is about microsoft charging to fix certain older products, and the parent was saying that anyone with a more recent version of the softwares don't need to pay a dime (obviously). Some people missed that, thus the parent precised, thats all.

  28. Exactly by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is for OS that are out of support.

    If you bought an extended support contract, at the time of expiration, you get this for free.

    If you thought "I won't have any W2K in 6 months, so why bother" and 24 months later, the DST issue caught you - well, pay up.

    Or what value did those who paid for extended support get?

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Exactly by inviolet · · Score: 1

      This is for OS that are out of support.

      Indeed. The Windows 2000 codebase is, what, 7-9 years old now? These slashdotters who are railing against Microsoft must not have ever tried doing a dev / qa project for production software (including hot hotfixing of critical servers) on code that is -- in IT terms -- ancient. That's a big cost to recapture.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:Exactly by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      >If you bought an extended support contract, at the time of expiration, you get this for free.
      Listen, bro: 'free' and 'MicroSoft' are mutually exclusive concepts.
      Any appearance of 'free' is a bill on a delay line.
      In fairness, for some, there may be a business case for the transaction, but let us curb our enthusiasm, bitte.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:Exactly by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      O.K.

      If you bought the extended support contract for this, you funded the development of the patch for the defunct system, and are entitled to it by contract. :-)

      Not my favourite business model, but one which is perfectly legitimate, and consistent with the terms offered.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    4. Re:Exactly by skogs · · Score: 1

      The codebase is exactly the same as XP. I obviously haven't taken the time to look, since its probably 'hidden' and not a simple file like in *nix....but I'd bet my left nut that the file that controls time shifts is identical in both 2k/xp.

      My right nut says that this will be a simple 2 second download on a 1200baud connection to fix anything from a million different websites within 2 weeks of the actual 'change'. (read here - insignificant change to OS - not a big download or change)

      This is nothing but a hint to the world to update to something...anything that is supported. The actual physical change is negligible.

      --
      Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
    5. Re:Exactly by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, for fuck's sake. They're charging $4000 for an update to two registry values. I'm all for charging to support end-of-life products, but only a complete retard would be able to justify what Microsoft's doing here.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    6. Re:Exactly by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever thought it might be more involved than that? Sure that helps adjust the clock, but what about when you do a date diff between the time right now (say its after the DST change) and the time 10 years ago, or 2 weeks ago, you'll be wrong by an hour or two depending on a number of factors. For most things this isn't important, but what if you're checking to see how many minutes left on a dialup ISP plan or some other hourly billing. What if you charge $1,000 an hour and you're off by an hour? Things like office have Calendars that need to know this stuff. .NET needs to know this stuff as well for time difference computation as well.

    7. Re:Exactly by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Microsoft is currently deploying new installations of Windows 2000 to military customers. Remember that thing about the British warship?

      This is just another way to try and make people upgrade to Vista.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    8. Re:Exactly by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well the fix isn't identical for Win2K and WinXP, in fact you can't even patch WinXP-SP1 and Win2K you have to hand edit it; Win2003 and WinXP-SP2 has patches and they are pretty small. It may well be the reason you can't patch Win 2K and WinXP-SP1 is because the patch checks for those and is programmed to bomb-out if they're found rather than any code differencees. OBTW it's a cumulative time patch, not a specific and it's still pretty small.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:Exactly by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      I know very little about programming and even I know you're blowing smoke out your ass. Whatever programs need to know what time it is are going to the aforementioned registry value or some other utility that uses that registry value to determine what time it is. That's the whole point of the registry value. That's the repository of the DST dates. You don't need anything else.

  29. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    No, the converse.

  30. DST patching costs too much by rtphokie · · Score: 1

    I personally think that businesses should be able to write off the time and money they spend on DST patching. It was the government that wants this DST change.

    The amount of downtime we've endured in our company is horrendeous because of this DST change. We have no choice but to install these poorly tested patches.

    1. Re:DST patching costs too much by theNote · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they don't?
      Its an expense just like everything else (aka, salaries, software, etc...)

  31. Pricy? by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Although the price of $4000 is 1/10 of the original estimate Microsoft made, it seems a bit pricey for a patch to a product you've already paid for.

    Well, it's not a bug fix. The products work to spec and have done so throughout their product life and general support, and right now they're in a "security/critical fix only" extended support. If I had to put programmers to update anything else, I'd want to get paid. I don't know how many takers they'll have on this offer, but to a large corporation $4000 for the whole company is a pittance so it hardly sounds like a big money maker...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  32. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    You have to squeeze out Converse? That's gotta hurt.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  33. Relatively Inexpesive by Christopher_G_Lewis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This fee is all inclusive. That means any product in extended support, and any DST related patch.

    So that includes:
        Windows 2000 Server straight DST patch
        Windows 2000 CRT DST patch (Never heard of that one? See here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932955/en-us/ and here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932590/en-us/
        Exchange running on W2K
        Visual Studio 6.0 patches (I believe...)

    So $4000 to cover *all* unsupported systems, and to have a human to call and say "Your patch screwed up my server" and have them fix it, is to be cliche, Priceless

    1. Re:Relatively Inexpesive by swillden · · Score: 1

      So $4000 to cover *all* unsupported systems, and to have a human to call and say "Your patch screwed up my server" and have them fix it, is to be cliche, Priceless

      Perhaps, but it's also a clear indicator of lousy design. This change should be a trivial adjustment to a configuration file, not a patch that has the remotest possibility of screwing up a server. So while the support might be reassuring, a smart CIO should be file this under "reasons not to buy MS in the future".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Relatively Inexpesive by Christopher_G_Lewis · · Score: 1

      Sorry - Failed to mention we run over 20,000 windows servers. That's SERVERS, not desktops. Our desktop count is close to the 1/2 million range.

      We have a little more leverage then most :-)

  34. ..or just DIY by ph43thon · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is absurd. Just go here and follow the instructions.

    Three steps.

    1. Create .reg file by copy/pasting from that page.
    2. Create .vbs file by copy/pasting from that page.
    3a. Create GPO to import reg key and run VBScript on Win2k machines at Startup.
    or
    3b. In absence of AD, modify script to copy itself and .reg file to all Win2k machines and apply fix.

    If you're such a small organization that you don't have an I.T. group.. then.. it's probably simple to use TZEdit to update your piddly network.

    For fun, you can trick out the script to make sure it only runs once.

    1. Re:..or just DIY by ficken · · Score: 1

      This is absurd. Just go here and follow the instructions. Three steps. 1. Create .reg file by copy/pasting from that page. 2. Create .vbs file by copy/pasting from that page. 3a. Create GPO to import reg key and run VBScript on Win2k machines at Startup. or 3b. In absence of AD, modify script to copy itself and .reg file to all Win2k machines and apply fix. If you're such a small organization that you don't have an I.T. group.. then.. it's probably simple to use TZEdit to update your piddly network. For fun, you can trick out the script to make sure it only runs once.
      Seriously....I even wrote a wrapper for the tzmove executable that impersonates the domain admin so that our users could run that fix without needing admin rights. This is not as big of a deal as everyone thinks it is. Every sys admin that I know (that actually works in an enterprise environment) has already taken care of this.

      And in regards to the person wondering how much money Congress has is causing people to lose because of this...when isn't Congress inflicting undue costs on businesses? :P
      --
      Victory shall be mine!
  35. Hickup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that the sound of a Southerner making a mistake?

  36. Re:Whoa by e9th · · Score: 1

    You do know that the law (final conference report) passed the House 275-156, the Senate 74-26, right? Not exactly party-line votes.

  37. Still cheaper by DogDude · · Score: 1

    What you say may be valid, but it doesn't change the fact that many MS products are significantly cheaper than the competition. I'm getting ready to move my small business to MS Dynamics because even with all of the fees, and ongoing support, their product is much cheaper (and better) than comparable competing products. So, while sure, it's not free, I know that many companies, large and small, still look at the bottom line, and aren't just buying MS products because they're Microsoft.

    The whole "lock-in" thing is really just a straw man. Data is data. If you don't like whatever product you're using for whatever application, just move the damn data to a new product. MS is certainly not holding guns to anybody's head to keep them using their products, and they don't hold data hostage. Heck, another part of the major software move I'm about to do is because MS Dynamics actually provides much easier, more transparent access to the raw data than competitors products allow.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  38. Re:Simple answer: OpenNTPd.org by upside · · Score: 1

    NTP uses UTC and has nothing to do with DST.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  39. Re:Bastages. by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    It's affected, but it's covered. Microsoft isn't covering W2K because it's a legacy product.

  40. I, for one by WetCat · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our Microsoft DST-changing overlords!

  41. 4 ground for a DST patch? by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

    I bet it's cheaper to upgrade to the next version!

    Oh snap...

    --
    "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  42. non free is like that. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    all Linux had to do was update its zone info stuff. Why is Windows so much harder? Didnt they do it properly?

    As an end user, it was even easier. All I did was apt-get update/upgrade.

    The difference between the free and non free worlds is never more glaring than when you "upgrade". Because non free companies don't trust each other or their users, they can't really co-operate. When they have to co-operate, things get sticky. Mechanisms, like the Windows registry, are so bad that it's easier to wipe and reload than it is to actually update software. What's a pain for individual users is multiplied by thousands for businesses and then compounded by the number of applications updated. A whole industry exists to help banks and other businesses do trivial things like change out versions of text editors and mail clients on ordinary workstations. It's a process that's excruciatingly manual, bandwith intensive and slow, with each person able to do less than ten machines a night. Add some smoke an mirrors timing "security"* into the mix and you have something even worse.

    *-there is no security on a platform with a one in four botnet ownership. The pain and expense are all for nothing.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:non free is like that. by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      For someone who's worked for a Fortune 100 bank, it's amazing that you've never heard of group policies. Our company has several hundred machines running XP. The only time anything 'excruciatingly manual' has to be done is when a computer breaks and needs replacing, but that's true for any OS.

      Updates and patches are rolled out centrally during the night and computers are up to date and working as normal in the morning, but you would know that, right?

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  43. Obviously by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Am I missing something here ?

    Yes, you're missing Four Million Dollars for every thousand businesses who figure they ought to get these for 'good measure'.

    Microsoft isn't.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  44. Not so Crazy... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Remember the batch of F-22 stealth fighters the lost everything but their flight-control computers when they crossed over the international dateline earlier this month?

    Well, that's certainly not the first time F-22's have flown across the pacific, and they never had that problem before. It was because of the DST patch to their systems, the engineers skipped the regression tests that involved the dateline because it was just a patch for the US timezones. Look what happened.

    So, while it may seem simple enough to change the DST handling in MS Windows, don't count on it.
    Whenever you mess around with time, it is easy to create unexpected results. (cue time-travel jokes)

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Not so Crazy... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      I can understand not reading the article, but you could have at least read the /. summary that you linked to!
      Notably, the phrase, "deployed for the first time". Which contradicts whatever orifice you pulled, "that's certainly not the first time F-22's have flown across the pacific" out of. Which makes it quite likely that you made up the rest of your silly assertions about DST updates as well. Especially considering that the military, and airplanes especially, primarily use GMT.

    2. Re:Not so Crazy... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If you are going flame someone claiming they didn't even read the article summary, it sure would behoove you to understand the terms. Flying outside of the US and deploying outside of the US are two distinctly different events - one is temporary and indicates a return soon after, the other is at least semi-permanent and denotes a new base of operations.

      As for GMT vs other timezones, true mainly because GPS runs in Zulu -- but local time is used a hell of a lot more than you might think, especially with the proliferation of COTS components in larger systems.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  45. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by Anml4ixoye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would be willing to bet big money that if MS did anything it lobbied against this change. It is a Really Big Deal, and not something that is easy to just modify.

    Also, by the US doing this it created more time zones. How? Mexico is choosing not to go along with the DST updates, therefore anywhere in Mexico using PST effectively isn't anymore.

  46. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by kbielefe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Talk about tinfoil hats, how paranoid do you have to be to tie a daylight savings change to the Iraq war?

    The daylight savings time change is one tiny paragraph of a huge energy policy bill, and by the way provides for a study in 9 months to see if it actually helped, and a potential of reverting back to the 2005 schedule if it didn't help. You may not agree with the policies put forth in the bill, but it certainly wasn't prompted by a desire to avoid appropriating money --- my senators and representative (all republicans) voted against it for anti-pork reasons.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  47. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by JonnyO · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually this wasn't unforeseeable, it was announced back in 2005. Why the vendors only recently got around to addressing this issue is a mystery. The countless e-mails I have gotten from consulting companies about it have gotten real old too. Here's some legendary support for ya: ADIC (now Quantum) told my storage engineer that they are too busy to deal with the change until after it has already occurred! It will be a cold day in hell before I buy something from these guys again.

  48. Microsoft STDs by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

    My first language is portuguese, and the portuguese acronym for STD-Sexually Transmitted Disease is DST. For one moment, I though that Microsoft has infected some of their users with some Sexually Transmitted Disease and was going to charge them for the cure
    But what is really impressive, is that I'd just found this as something natural for microsoft, and it took me a whole 5 seconds to realize that the english acronym is different. It really says a lot about my perceptions on Microsoft. Any other portuguese speaker here got the same feeling upon reading the headline?

    --
    Your ad could be here!
  49. FREE Update by BanjoBob · · Score: 2, Informative
    You know that M$ is totally ripping you off when you can go to www.IntelliAdmin.com and get a FREE patch. I've used their patches in the past and often times they are a LOT cleaner and easier to use than those from the GREEDY M$.

    Always worth a try!

    --
    Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
    1. Re:FREE Update by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a real enterprise-level idea. I'm sure most large corporations will jump at the chance of using a small third-party vendor to ensure uptime.

      Jedi mind-trick for moderators: of course, this wouldn't even be an issue if the Windows API were open source.

    2. Re:FREE Update by BanjoBob · · Score: 1

      Why not? The enterprise uses many 3rd party software products for productivity. Some products are even home-grown. I've used 3rd party fixes many times in the enterprise. You thoroughly test them in the lab and if they solve the business problem, you roll them out. This vendor has been around a while and has an excellent reputation. Just because it isn't a M$ solution doesn't mean it is a bad solution.

      --
      Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
    3. Re:FREE Update by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "You thoroughly test them in the lab and if they solve the business problem, you roll them out."

      I don't believe 7 days is enough time to thoroughly test anything like a third-party time change patch on e-commerce lab servers, at least in the travel business (my enterprise environment). I'm also finding it hard to believe anyone who still writes "M$" has any kind of responsibility in the enterprise, but you never know.

    4. Re:FREE Update by BanjoBob · · Score: 1

      Possible I suppose. I work primarily in the Insurance industries where a significant number of my clients are still at Windows 2000. While I live primarily in a "Solaris/Sun Enterprise - Oracle" environment, I do need to use a wide variety of Windows based 3rd party tools (Business Objects, Brio, Crystal Reports, Cisco tools, Informatica, etc.) As such, about 90% of my life is with Unix based stuff -- not M$.

      The point is that this patch does a simple function -- it updates the registry to reflect the fix offered by M$. Does the registry, after the update, show the EXACT same data as the M$ Knowledge Base article says it should? Yes, it does. Was anything else changed? No. Did the patch work as advertised? Yes it did. When clocks changed forward by either network or manual setting, did the time yield what was expected? Yes it did? Did the mission critical applications function properly with the new times? Yes, they did?

      So, why would I need more than 7 days to test this? It is a simple fix. Now, a big fix such as a new OS version, new network layer, new ODBC or such may require more than 7 days to properly evaluate but, this isn't one of those situations.

      Because this is a very simple fix that could even be done manually per M$ instructions, $4,000 per license is pure highway robbery on the part of greedy M$. So, in this case, Microsoft is M$ for the Mega $ they're going to make on the enterprise. With my clients, we'll spend that money on something we need.

      --
      Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
  50. Government provides patch at no charge by kindbud · · Score: 1
    Is there actually a patch from Redhat/Suse/etc for systems that are as old as Win2k available?

    The source for all of the patches is the timezone data published through the US NIH ftp site. (why National Institutes of Health - no idea, but this is the authoritative source). This data is published in System V zonedata format, ready to compile with your Unix's zic(1) command.


    ftp elsie.nci.nih.gov
    cd /pub
    bin
    get tzdata2007c.tar.gz
    quit
    tar zxf tzdata2007c.tar.gz northamerica
    zic northamerica


    You're done.

    If your server runs a timezone other than a North American one, maybe you want to untar the whole thing and glance at the README.
    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
    1. Re:Government provides patch at no charge by dextromulous · · Score: 1

      Yep, and if you don't have zic installed, download tzcode*.tar.gz from the same site, compile it, and you have all of the updated timezone files automatically. I was surprised how painless it was. I recently had to update the timezone files on an embedded system. It's scary to think about how many embedded devices are going to be off by an hour for 4 weeks a year now.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
  51. Prognosis by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

    Cost of transition: -$2 billion
    Lost sales due to implementation problems -$1.2 Billion
    Lost wages due to bumble-fucked transition -$2.3 Billion
    Injuries, lawsuits etc: -$2.7 billion
    Bribes er ... campaign contributions to Congress-creatures: $1 million (not as cheap as crack-whores, but close).

    Energy Savings +$2.1 Billion

    Net savings: -$6.101 Billion. For Congress, that's good. =/
    [Note: all numbers conjured out of "thin air" which is to say made up -just like the government's numbers]

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  52. Personal Users? by Shabadage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I still use 2K, so am I basically screwed on getting the DST right on my system? Or will there be a free patch for end users? I'm sure if I asked someone at M$ that, I'd get the response "Upgrade to VISTA"; which is NOT going to happen; my system doesn't need to be any slower thank you, it's already 5 years old. I'm not too concerned (Hell, I don't even keep a firewall active on my home system; but that's) cause I don't do ANYTHING of value on it. Just wondering.

    1. Re:Personal Users? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Hell, I don't even keep a firewall active on my home system; but that's) cause I don't do ANYTHING of value on it."

      Wow.

      So, like, does being part of a zombie botnet noticeably slow down your connection at certain times, or is it fairly well distributed over the entire net? How well do those things scale?

    2. Re:Personal Users? by Shabadage · · Score: 1

      Just cause I don't have a firewall doesn't mean I just let it go to hell. Besides, my ancient desktop is used for one thing, and one thing only. Playing games. If hackers want to steal my savegames or screw with the tiny HD, well I don't really care that much. All my good equipment is behind both software and hardware protection.

    3. Re:Personal Users? by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 1

      If you don't do anything valuable on it, just remember that your clock will be off by an hour for a couple of weeks. I've known people who go all summer, or all winter, with their vehicle clocks off by an hour because they don't know how to change them.

    4. Re:Personal Users? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      *whooosh!*

    5. Re:Personal Users? by prshaw · · Score: 1

      And so why are you worried about your clock being off by an hour?

    6. Re:Personal Users? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      And so why are you worried about your clock being off by an hour?
      I've found knowing the time while playing is important for the game and otherwise (agreeing to go somewhere in a hour ingame, when to get off etc). That said... Changing the time manually isn't such a impossible task.

      Note: I am not the original poster.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  53. How much is Congress costing America? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see someone total up the dollars lost because Congress decided to change DST without giving 5-10 years' head start.

    By the way, a LOT of VCRs and other embedded-systems clocks will never again pick up DST correctly. I've told people to turn DST off on clocks and older PCs and just change the clocks manually.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  54. This article is full of it by tcg2k5 · · Score: 1

    I just downloaded the patches for nothing and I did not even have to pay a thing or verify that my OS was legit or not. SO this article about charging is full of it. I used it for several win2k servers and win2k3 servers.

    --
    thank you, Brian M. http://www.masonfamilytree.com http://www.thefederation.us http://www.patriciaannmason.com http
    1. Re:This article is full of it by Digz · · Score: 1

      No, the article is spot on. I noticed this two weeks ago when I was looking for fixes for our W2K and E2K servers. The patches they provide are only good for W2K3 and E2K3 stuff. Of course, they also offer instructions for free on how to patch them yourself - which is what I ended up doing.

      --
      SYS 64738
  55. Extended Support? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If you have contracted extended support then no, that should be free. Thats what 'extended support' should mean.. they support you.

    Now, if you want a patch for a product that is OUT of support ( like NT4, or exchange 5.5 ), then a resonable fee should apply.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  56. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by cyberjunkie98 · · Score: 1

    While I agree with you tinfoil hat statement, DST is tied to a war.. actually several, starting with WWI.

    http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html

  57. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by vtcodger · · Score: 1
    ***and a potential of reverting back to the 2005 schedule if it didn't help.***

    Is it going to cost another $4000 per product to back the change out?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  58. Cows, Drapes and Diaries. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree wholeheartedly, blaming MS is pure idiocy. Here in Australia we had DST well before we had computers plugged into everything. Didin't stop the bullshit though, the main complaints were...

    1. Dairy cows will require milking at the "wrong time" and will suffer from overfull udders.

    2. Drapes will fade quicker due to the "extra" UV light.

    BTW: This DST "calamity" is not restricted to MS software, I mean how the hell does someone with a traditional diary get around the problem, I have never seen a diary that has a 23 or 25 hour day on the change over date. Will receptionists in small offices all across the US go into meltdown? Will the publishers responsible for the "defective" diaries be issuing page updates? - Nah, but hopefull it will convince the remaining ludites to dump Win2000 and look for something better.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Cows, Drapes and Diaries. by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      You didn't mention this, but since you're from Australia you probably assumed that everyone already knows.

      The correct procedure for dealing with autumn/fall daylight savings (gain an hour) is to spend the extra hour drinking as much as possible - it's a free hour! In spring (lose an hour) you need to drink extra fast to make up for the time you'll lose ;)

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    2. Re:Cows, Drapes and Diaries. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can drink 25hrs a day. :)

      Years ago I worked shift work in a large factory that had those old fasioned synconized clocks on the shop floor, if you were on night shift you could watch it go forward (woohoo) or backward (doh). It didn't effect anyones pay, it was just luck if you hit a short/long shift.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  59. Support for Windows 2000 is over by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Umm not if you paid for extended support.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  60. Compared to Apple by memco · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice that Apple fixed this in a small patch a week or two ago? For free I might add.

    --
    Get me a meat pie floater!
    1. Re:Compared to Apple by BigDish · · Score: 1

      For what versions? Windows 2000 came out in November, 1999. The current MacOS version at that time was OS 8.6. Did Apple release a patch for that? Or even OS 10.1 or 10.2, which are from 2002 and 2003 respectively. Also keep in mind that Microsoft offers free information on how to make this change manually - the $4,000 is for a fully tested, supported patch. In a major corporation, a one minute interruption in work would likely equal more than $4,000 - all in all, cheap for a large company.

    2. Re:Compared to Apple by memco · · Score: 1

      According to the download page the update was released on Feb. 15 for Tiger anbd Panther. No idea what's available for older systems.

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    3. Re:Compared to Apple by curmi · · Score: 1

      No patch for anything other than 10.3 and 10.4, but Apple did explain the problem and how to manually adjust your clock for older systems - http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305 056.

      The Apple world does tend to upgrade to newer operating systems more than the Windows world.

  61. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by dosquatch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And, please note that these products aren't even officially being supported anymore

    Allow me to dance upon the grave of this particular party line here and now -- bullshit, MS is still actively selling this operating system if you happen to be the right customer.

    My gripe isn't that they want to charge for an update to a (now) 2-gen-old version of a product. My gripe is what they want to charge, even the new bargain-basement price. I could see a "nominal charge" up to the original sticker price, but I just can't swallow that a relatively simple change to the OS incurs a 40x higher cost than the original development of the entire OS, especially considering its a change they have to come up with anyway, because they are still actively selling it.

    --
    "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
  62. Sun Solaris 8 patch cost worse by embobo · · Score: 1

    For MS you can apply the patch to all systems. For Solaris before 8 the cost is $400 _per server_ or _$150K_ for more than 375 servers. See

    http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/features/techtips/sola ris_dst_addendum.jsp

  63. Lots of money to be made... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    At 40K or even 4K per customer there appears to be a LOT of money to be made to fix this problem.

    Which lobby group convinced the Government that this was a good idea?? Just curious...

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  64. Outlook calendars are screwed up... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    We have a problem with appointments on our Judges outlook calendars that were made prior to the "patch" if those appointments fall in the new daylight savings time. The appointments are shifted by one hour. We found that deleting them and recreating them didn't help. Weird.

    I wish it were as easy as writing a couple scripts.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  65. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    Iraq War and "Energy Policy Bill".

    Right. No connection at all.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  66. M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by xenotoxin · · Score: 1

    I still use OS/2 on several server boxes (never crashed, no viruses, trojans etc.) & was a bit concerned that I might need to migrate them to the "roll your own" version of Linux that we use on our other machines, thanks to the new DST idiocy (thanks congressional bottom feeding pigs). Imagine my surprise when I went to the software updates site (IBM/ECS) and found a fix (free for all users) for all versions of OS/2. So, Billy barf-bag, what exactly is your excuse for charging folks for this rather elementary fix?

    1. Re:M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "what exactly is your excuse for charging folks for this rather elementary fix?"

      That's plain simple. They charge because they *can*. Even if Microsoft had a sane guarantee policy (of course, they don't have it) this is not a bug but a feature. Microsoft is a privative software vendor and is just OK for them to charge for new features. Others don't charge for new features? That's fine and good for them, but this doesn't mean Microsoft needs any "excuse" to charge for new features; that's just the way they make bussiness and it's no news at all.

      "So, Billy barf-bag,"

      There's no "Billy barf-bag" here. If you find surprising Microsoft charging for features, maybe the one surprised is the one being plain unprofessional -or even stupid, here. You first decided to get locked on a company that can and will decide how much they will charge for *any* feature, then you surprise that they decided to use the power you put on their hands? doh!

    2. Re:M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by xenotoxin · · Score: 1

      Your ability to miss the blindingly obvious is breathtaking. The point is simply this, if IBM (manufacturer of OS/2) can provide a DST fix *free* to all of their customers, why is M$ & Billy the barf bag charging for theirs.? Oh, and your contention that the fix is a "feature"? No person of any standing would ever assert that a patch to bring a (still) widely used OS into compliance is a feature. Of course this would provoke name calling from a know-nothing twonk. As for stupidity, learn to spell, or better yet, actually learn the English language you third-world call centre refugee. "privative software vendor and is just OK for them to charge for new features.", "just the way they make bussiness and it's no news at all."

    3. Re:M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Your ability to miss the blindingly obvious is breathtaking. The point is simply this, if IBM (manufacturer of OS/2) can provide a DST fix *free* to all of their customers, why is M$ & Billy the barf bag charging for theirs.?"

      I think it's you the one that don't see the obvious. I'll repeat it again: they charge for new features *because they can*. Full stop.

      "Oh, and your contention that the fix is a "feature"? No person of any standing would ever assert that a patch to bring a (still) widely used OS into compliance is a feature."

      Because changing the way a system behaves due to new circumnstances not known or not aplicable by the time the system was released is *always* a feature, not a fix.

      "As for stupidity, learn to spell, or better yet, actually learn the English language you third-world call centre refugee. "

      Probably my English is not as good as you, still I understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity, which seems to be quite beyond your abilities.

    4. Re:M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by xenotoxin · · Score: 1

      You're still to stupid to read the original post correctly. Your adamant ignorance obviates the need for further explication. Fix not feature (idiot). DIAF.

    5. Re:M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      Woooha, what a charming troll!

      But you are wrong: I'm not still to stupid; I'm adamant.

    6. Re:M$ EOS vs. IBM Support by xenotoxin · · Score: 1

      You're stupidity is futher evidenced by your belief that repetition somehow = veracity. You are a fool and an air burglar whose parents should be hung for crimes against the gene pool.

  67. If you (MicroSoft) See Cash, er uh SACRED Cow... by misterhypno · · Score: 1

    BILK it for ALL IT'S WORTH!!!

    Only Microsoft could POSSIBLY have the stones to charge their users for a fix that their own system programming fails to address!

    Bravo, Redmond! You have, once again, shown the World a NEW WAY into the wallets of the businesses OF the world!

    Kudos!

  68. Re:Bastages. by Peet42 · · Score: 1

    I was going to post that XP Home might not be eligible for a free upgrade, but on checking the page I notice that not only is it supported, but it has acquired a 5-year "extended support" period since last I looked. It used to be deemed ineligible for extended support because it wasn't a "Business product" but that seems to have changed since the last time I checked, just before Christmas. Weird.

  69. This could have been avoided. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    If shrub didn't feel like playing god and changing our very system of keeping time.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  70. Re:Bastages. by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 1

    What the hell does bastages mean?

  71. there are at least several free utilities by alizard · · Score: 1

    that'll change the clock for MS OSs automatically. I grabbed one, installed it on the Windows VM running in my copy of VMware Server, problem solved. Find out how to get it and set it up here

  72. Look, out on the lake ! by Joebert · · Score: 1

    It's a bird, it's a ship, no, it's getting your software up to date being cheaper than patching a leaky boat !

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  73. Windows 2K was sunset June 30, 2005 by trimbo · · Score: 1

    People knew then exactly what the support stakes were:

    Microsoft is not ending support for Windows 2000. During the Extended Support phase, Microsoft continues to provide security hot fixes and paid support but no longer provides complimentary support options, design change requests, and non-security hotfixes.*

    Everyone had 18 months to update to XP and WS2003 and didn't do it. Of course, this is Slashdot, it must always be Microsoft's fault!

    1. Re:Windows 2K was sunset June 30, 2005 by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is Slashdot, it must always be Microsoft's fault! No, sometimes it must be the government's fault.
  74. (OT) Re:Screw 'em by 313373_bot · · Score: 1

    Thanks!

    --
    ^[:q!
  75. well, no by geekoid · · Score: 1

    If you have a car thats 10 years old and the government mandates a change, the consume doesn't have to pay for it.

    MS is clearly gouging.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  76. Re:Bastages. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

    Watch the movie Johnny Dangerously sometime.

    It's full of fargin bastages.

  77. Payed for products by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    Bah! You purchased a piece of software, not support. I don't want to hear a bunch of bitching about a copmany *offering* a small limited support package to extend the support contract on a product to encompass hundreds of products for one fee.

    For $4,000 you're getting someone willing to say "this will work". If you don't find that worth $4,000 then use one of a gazillion free options or just change it manually. Hell even microsoft offers a free solution! All you have to do is get off your lazy ass download it and install it. Done! If it fucks up your system, well then I hope it costs you less that $4,000 to rectify.

    The whole thing is a load of fud if you ask me.

    1. Re:Payed for products by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Don't be a dipshit. Actually, the unofficial patches work better, because the Microsoft patch doesn't reload the current control set.

      More importantly, since Microsoft decided to be dipshits, you can't SUS or WSUS out the patches, which makes it alot harder to reach mobile populations.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  78. Re:Anyone wanna explain why NTP won't work? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    NTP only synchronizes UTC. Your timezone is an offset from that, which has nothing to do with NTP.

    If you run NTP, you still need a patch, or your clock will be wrong, by precisely one hour.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  79. Re:Bastages. by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

    because the Internet time update generally will update the GMT value on your system. Then, it will convert it to local time. Can you see the problem here?

  80. Re:Bastages. by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 1

    Proof (The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.-answers.com) of Chaos Actually, Prof. Chaos and Professor Chaos were already taken. ...And I was kind of drunk.

  81. Re:It's Apple Time. by toddestan · · Score: 1

    Suddenly, Apple charging a few bucks for 802.11n doesn't seem so bad. But I've got a bunch of DST updates sitting in my System Update. For free. Are they charging commercial clients?

    I take it you're running 10.3 or later on that Apple system, as Apple isn't patching anything earlier. Meanwhile Microsoft is patching XP for free (a good 2 years older than 10.3), and is offering to support even older OSes for a (admittedly outragous) fee. Apple is actually a lot quicker than Microsoft when it comes to killing support for legacy OSes.

  82. prime example of why to use OSS & not propredi by Locutus · · Score: 1

    OSS is not likely to have this kind of problem since there are many many options for who's going to fix the 'problem'.

    So pass the word, along with no BSA worries, OSS frees you from paying Microsoft for tweaks to older software.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  83. upgrading the bank. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Old troll Bungi doubts me:

    "It's a process that's excruciatingly manual ... with each person able to do less than ten machines a night "
    Bullshit. Do you even *believe* this crap you write? You've never had a job in a real company with more than 100 machines, so do us all a favor and just don't share your opinion on things like these. OK? Thanks.

    Yes, Bungi, I've actually been on a Windoze upgrade slave gang for a fortune 100 bank and what I describe is how I remember it. They had some of the automated upgrade tools you mentioned, but they did not work. Instead, they wiped and reloaded with boot floppies that grabbed images from a server running linux. Most of the programs had to be installed anyway so that the registry would be consistent.

    Did you really? You're so leet. By any chance would you happen to be running an eight-year old version of Linux?

    Ha ha, I'm a normal desktop user and no, I don't have to run eight year old versions of software that have been continually upgraded and improved. The longest chain of upgrading I can remember is potato to woody to sarge. It got tricky once but everything usually worked. Mostly, it's easier to install binaries fresh. Leet is a concept that only applies in the non free world of secrets and bullshit.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  84. No Problem by mombodog · · Score: 1

    That patch will be out on bittorrent in no time. 4K so your crap software keeps working. Sounds like another year 2000 scam to me. All the computers will crash, ahhh, ahhh, ahhh.

  85. Re:Bastages. by OmnipotentEntity · · Score: 4, Informative

    $4K? How about this?

    Open up regedit and go to the following location:
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\TimeZoneInformation

    Change DaylightStart to the following
    00 00 03 00 02 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    (Simply we're changing 04 to 03 and 01 to 02)

    Change StandardStart to the following
    00 00 0b 00 01 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    (Simply we're changing 0a to 0b and 05 to 01)

    Why those changes?

    DaylightStart rules:
    04 becomes 03 because we're going from "April" (04) to "March" (03). 01 becomes 02 because we're going from the 1st Sunday (in April) to the 2nd Sunday (in March).

    StandardStart rules:
    0a becomes 0b because we're going from "October" (0a) to "November" (0b). 05 becomes 01 because we're going from the Last Sunday (in October) to the 1st Sunday (in November).

    Consider that one on the house. It works for Windows 2000 at least.

    --
    "Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
  86. $4K is Cheap compared to an SLA Penalty by su-geek · · Score: 1

    For many businesses IT outsourcing agreements are a way of life, with a good contract manager any contractual agreement or metric not met will be dealt with according to contractual agreements. $4000 is cheap compared to what most contractual penalties are, if the lunch meeting for hooha big wig #3 with big new potential client is ruined by said outsourcing company $4000 is the least to be worrying about (see CYA). my .02$

  87. Close enough anyway by abb3w · · Score: 1

    If you thought "I won't have any W2K in 6 months, so why bother" and 24 months later, the DST issue caught you - well, pay up.

    Or, alternatively, migrate before next Sunday.... which is what I did with a couple of our legacy Win2K machines. I'm having more problems with the migration of the surviving pre-firewire Macintoshes onto Linux-PPC. I think one may end up just being reformatted with a flask of liquid oxygen, a jar of aluminum filings, and a magnesium flare.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Close enough anyway by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Laugh!

      Be sure and get the footage online.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  88. Re:Bastages. by azrider · · Score: 1

    people are just NOW rushing to patch (which could have been done YEARS ago)
    Not true at all. Unlike the *nix tzinfo file, if the change was made in windows in January 2006, DST in 2006 would have started on Mar 12. To see why, keeping in mind that there are 2 registry entries, on a *nix box run "zdump -v US/Pacific | less". You will see every change in DST dating back to 1901 (at least on my fedora core 6 box).
    --
    And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
    John 8:32(King James Version)
  89. Globalization will make DST irrelevant by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    I'm hoping that this pointless change just means DST is in its death throes. Corporations do more business online internationally now, and will soon find it more convenient to just use GMT rather than continue to do conversions for a meeting in 4 time zones. This is just another nail on the coffin of local US time zones.

    And as everyone on Slashdot surely knows, setting you BIOS clock to GMT and your Windows timezone to GMT is the only way to prevent your system from doing something stupid when dual-booting Linux around DST-changing time.

    Anyway, I'm waking up at 1300 GMT tomorrow, dammit.

  90. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    MS is still actively selling this operating system if you happen to be the right customer.
    And since when do you have to provide support with something you're selling?
    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  91. Microsoft already gave it away free... by zeropointburn · · Score: 1

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914387

    or you can use ours...
    ftp://ftp.prophetsys.com/Drivers/DST/DSTtool.exe ...provided without warranty, responsibility, or any representations of any particular function, do not use, sacrifice a chicken in the name of FSM, etc., etc.... please don't smite the server and get me fired...

    Bear in mind that it does nothing whatsoever to resolve issues arising from programs scheduling things during the whole transition, or networks that require a central timekeeping source, or anything else mentioned in other posts. It just and only fixes your daylight savings database and current timezone settings. No restart needed, how nice.

    By the way, radio automation is one of those time-sensitive systems that get really finniky about DST. This tool plays nice with our systems (because they are already designed to read DST from windows), but it might just break yours.

    --
    -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  92. insert free ad for MS Dynamics here .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    yet another rehash of bought in 'product' in a bright new shiny package ..

    Hi, Steve ..

    Re:Still cheaper

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
    1. Re:insert free ad for MS Dynamics here .. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Your post makes no sense, whatsoever.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  93. Re:Bastages. by budgenator · · Score: 1

    I downloaded the patch for Win2003 on my linux machine!, the patch for WinXP-SP2 (and only SP2) required "genuine advantage" to download. I did that on the wife's machine and forgot to use IE, so microsoft graciously offered to install a plug-in to Firefox. I declined, letting microsoft install firefox plug-ins seemed like letting your baby sister organize your porn collection.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  94. Re:Anyone wanna explain why NTP won't work? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    No, because then anything that uses UTC will be wrong, which might be worse than having the displayed time be wrong.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  95. Re:Anyone wanna explain why NTP won't work? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, and also, by default ntpd won't accept a one-hour jump; it will assume something has gone wrong and won't accept the new time.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  96. I love it! by stlbud · · Score: 1

    This whole thing has been a brainless mess since it was proposed by the Ohio Representative who didn't want his kiddies to out trick-or-treating in the dark. SEND A BILL TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES! They are the ones who made this mess. Let them pay for it.

    Bill B

  97. Re:Manual Change? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    I think you better believe it, the patch is to edit the registry and change the definition of DST time, and anything that depends on Windows for time calculations is going to be seriously borked; this makes a good case for using GMT+5 and GMT+6 for my local timezones in WINDOWS.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  98. Re:If you (MicroSoft) See Cash, er uh SACRED Cow.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

    oh you silly boy, this ain't no stinking fix this is just a cover-up! Apply the patches and all the time in the pre2007 DST period change too! Imagine telling the DOJ that you can't tell what time is actually in the logs when they are trying to catch some terrorist child pornographers downloading Britney Spears music, because Microsoft deployed a half-assed patch that change all the times in the computer; oh the humanity!

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  99. Just in case Vista upgrades didn't cost ya enough. by dynamo · · Score: 1

    What is with windows users that they are willing to take all this crap and keep paying for it??
    It's free for us Apple users.

    Apple - http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305 056

  100. Re:It's Apple Time. by toddestan · · Score: 1

    MS has had only one OS release since XP, Apple has had many revisions.

    at $129 a pop. Guess you have to keep giving Apple money if you want to stay patched up.

    You also forgot Windows 2003.

  101. insert free ad for my pet supply store .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    Your post makes no sense, whatsoever

    It's how Microsoft usually innovates. Buy in a product and repackage it as MS whatever.

    was Re:insert free ad for MS Dynamics here ..

    Please go to my pet supply store .. :)

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
    1. Re:insert free ad for my pet supply store .. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It's how Microsoft usually innovates. Buy in a product and repackage it as MS whatever.

      I couldn't care if it was made by a team of trained squirrels. As long as it works and it's a reasonable price, I'll buy it. I really don't care if it was bought, stolen, borrowed, or anything else. Do you know where the rubber comes from that goes into your car tires?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  102. What I want to know by Thirdlight · · Score: 1

    Has anyone gotten a patch for the exchange 2000 part of it yet? The w2k one is pointless, why would anyone pay the 4k when microsoft themselves gives you a way to run it through active directory, and the code to go with. Yes we only have about 15 servers and about 75 users, but it worked perfectly fine for the timezone portion. The bad thing is that microsoft themselves are having problems on turning out actual patches for the exchange/outlook portion. if you've been following it like we have been for the past month they go between saying dont update your OS before the patch to update before it, right back to dont do it. Has anyone gotten something decent to work out with the CDO's yet?

  103. XP SP2 by smithcl8 · · Score: 1

    There is a claim on MS's site that the registry hack works for Windows 2000 and that the patch for Windows XP only works on SP2. Can't I just use the same registry hack for 2000 and XP, any service pack? I don't see why not, as if I do the hack on Windows XP and then run TZEdit (downloaded for Windows 2000), my time zone shows up properly adjusted for the new rules.

    Why don't I just upgrade to SP2? Well, I have an entire load of new PCs to deploy, but I'm not going to get them done by this weekend. Once they are in place, this is a complete non-issue, but for now, I need to get this working.

  104. Re:TEH M$ IS TEH EVIL!!!!1111one11 by mink · · Score: 1

    IBM somehow managed to not charge people for AIX updates, and the versions they did not patch just need an update to the TZ variable in /etc/environments.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  105. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by mink · · Score: 1

    IBM didnt patch EOL versions of AIX, but at least told you you need to modify the TZ value in /etc/environments then reboot before the change and gave the information to everyone (including the values to be added).

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  106. Thank your dumb-ass lawmakers... by BarnabyWilde · · Score: 1

    ...for the entire mess.

    It's AN EXPERIMENT, seriously.

    If it "saves no energy", which it won't, WE GO BACK TO THE OLD DST RULES, and we do it all over again next year!!!!

    You allowed YOUR dumb-ass lawmakers to do this by YOUR neglect!!!!

    Why *not* penalize them for this?

    BWilde