[pbhjpbhj]

Surely these sorts of errors in major systems are already being/have already been addressed - for healthcare for example a search for which members of a GP's practice are going to be pensioners in 2040 is going to error badly? Strikes me that the time to address them was shortly after the millennium bug.

[__jal]

If you were around for the millennium bug, then surely you remember how many people waited until about October, '99 to start looking for problems. If you think those people went looking for another problem 38 years away to fix...

If this class of business is not seeing a problem this minute, it isn't a bug. And it won't be a serious-enough bug to spend money on until whatever workarounds they can think of start having negative effects on income.

Sources: experience with Y2K remediation, experience with small business consulting & software development, experience with humans.

[tormeh]

>experience with humans

So true. That said, thinking 38 years into the future is usually not sensible for most businesses, because it's very possible that they're bankrupt before then. Thinking 21 years into the future also offers poor ROI for the same reason.

[pbhjpbhj]

I was thinking large companies, banks etc.. I'm not in IT/programming but remember (despite being young) that 2 other calendar related 'bugs' were mentioned at the time. IIRC we've had one and the epoch bug is the second.

Strikes me that big businesses would have thought "will we need to do this again in a few years" and acted appropriately and that there should be a trickle down effect as large corps demand future proofing in IT products.

Yes negligence, ignorance, lack of foresight, corner cutting, and other human traits feed in to that.

[tyingq]

Generally, the bigger and older the company is, the more unmaintained cruft you have. Banks would be one of the worst I imagine.

[gcb0]

> Surely these sorts of errors in major systems are already being/have already been addressed [...] search for which members of a GP's practice are going to be pensioners in 2040

If you know anything about programmers, you know they found that error at some point during development, thought about how other people dealt with that, remembered that windows used to treat >30 as 1900s and <30 as 2000s and did the same. So probably the people in this thread planning their retirement solving this will have to figure out which random unix timestamp number is treated as pre 2038 and which one is after. And then they will have to undo all the last-minute spaghetti code tying it up on the original program.

[tyingq]

That's not been my experience. A lot of companies don't address needs that are farther in the future, because there are nearer term needs and a fixed budget. Also, legacy systems that haven't been patched or updated in decades aren't that uncommon.

And, even if they happen to be safe, they do tend to pay well just for an audit to confirm that.

[ams6110]

Financial systems that deal with bonds already have to deal with maturity dates on 30-year bonds that are past 2038.

[PeterisP]

Those type of systems use various date representations instead of datetime/timestamp fields, they should be mostly immune. Well, until 2038 arrives and some of these dates start being compared with the current datetime.