X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to opendos-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4FD666C@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From: "da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Time & date bug (was: Novell DOS 7.0 ...)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:29:55 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g2JNNNP23948
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

Easy. Just boot up a machine and leave it alone for a couple of
days. From memory, this effect is most common at the end of
the month, although it's been a long time since I tested this stuff.
BTW, the reason to "leave the machine alone" is to prevent
accidentally "exercising" the DOS's time & date functions.

I first became aware of this problem (well, bug) in all versions
of the MonoSoft DOSes, in an embedded system, which was
in continuous operation running a dedicated application. This
system was never rebooted or switched off (it used a solid-
-state disk, of course), and the dedicated application would
only "exercise" the time & date functions when it needed to
log an event. With the MonoSoft DOSes, these logs often had
incorrect dates reported, due to this problem/bug, but with
DR-DOS 6.0 and 7.02, all was fine.

Joe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Arkady V.Belousov [SMTP:ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:14 AM
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	RE: Novell DOS 7.0 and Re: S  PAM
> 
> X-Comment-To: da Silva, Joe
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 19-Мар-2002 20:45 Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com (da Silva, Joe) wrote to
> "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>:
> 
> dJ> Are you sure you've got this right? It's M$-DOS (and PC-DOS,
> dJ> IIRC) that will sometimes forget to increment the date, not
> dJ> DR-DOS or Novell-DOS. I have observed this effect on all versions
> dJ> of M$-DOS I have had access to, at least 3.2 through 6.22 (haven't
> dJ> stress-tested M$-DOS 7.XX in this way).
> 
>      How you test this? Some time ago I also encounter this, but after
> this
> I can't reproduce this underwork...