A conjecture about this would be that 2038 is the ending of UNIX time. The maximum numer of seconds a signed integer can hold is 2 ** 31 - 1. So all as far as all Linux boxen are concerned the world ends on:
Microsoft seems to be uniquely capable of solving the security problems with their older product line and maintaining backwards compatibility. Why not simply run older programs under a virtualiztion technology and completely change the foundation of Vista? Microsoft owns the I.P. involved with the OS and already owns Virtual PC. This would allow older products to perform without changes.
Individual users would run as non-administrators and a few other core changes could be put in place. If a developer wanted to release a product that ran directly on Vista the libraries would be similar so all he needed to do is re-compile and link and ensure his product worked with the new security settings.
On the other hand, older Windows programs could install transparently into a virtual "instance" owned by the current user and she'd never know any difference. Backwards compatibility would be ensured by the fact that they were in fact running under a "Virtual Instance" of Windows XP. It might even be possible to get some money out of businesses holding out with DOS/Win 3.x/Win95 etc. by offering "plugins" for virtualization with this technology.
Slashdot Mirror
A conjecture about this would be that 2038 is the ending of UNIX time. The maximum numer of seconds a signed integer can hold is 2 ** 31 - 1. So all as far as all Linux boxen are concerned the world ends on:
> perl -le 'print scalar localtime 2 ** 31 -1;'
Mon Jan 18 21:14:07 2038
Monday January the 18th, 2038. This is probably why they always are set to expire in 2038. Don't know about 2016.
And this explanation could be bull anyway.
On the same note:
Mr. Nash,
Microsoft seems to be uniquely capable of solving the security problems with their older product line and maintaining backwards compatibility. Why not simply run older programs under a virtualiztion technology and completely change the foundation of Vista? Microsoft owns the I.P. involved with the OS and already owns Virtual PC. This would allow older products to perform without changes.
Individual users would run as non-administrators and a few other core changes could be put in place. If a developer wanted to release a product that ran directly on Vista the libraries would be similar so all he needed to do is re-compile and link and ensure his product worked with the new security settings.
On the other hand, older Windows programs could install transparently into a virtual "instance" owned by the current user and she'd never know any difference. Backwards compatibility would be ensured by the fact that they were in fact running under a "Virtual Instance" of Windows XP. It might even be possible to get some money out of businesses holding out with DOS/Win 3.x/Win95 etc. by offering "plugins" for virtualization with this technology.
Why doesn't microsoft do something like this?
Jonathan Jeffus