Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Change in daylight-saving time could confuse some programs

Filed under
Misc

A pending energy bill expected to soon gain approval from the U.S. Congress means some programmers will once again need to check over their software code for potential problems handling a calendar adjustment.

Congress is proposing a four-week extension of daylight-saving time (DST), a move that could trip up applications and gadgets programmed to adjust their internal clocks according to the "summer time" schedule the U.S. has kept for nearly two decades.

The IT industry will have plenty of time to prepare: The extension would take effect one year after enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which likely means a 2007 start date for the new schedule. The energy bill won approval yesterday in a joint U.S. Senate and House of Representatives conference committee, and is expected to soon pass the full Congress and move on to the White House.

The change would shift DST's start from April back to March and move its end from October to November. Those extra few weeks of DST will save 100,000 barrels of oil per day, according to legislators backing the change.

It will also confuse programs set to automatically handle DST hours. Summer time changes, observed in patchwork fashion around the world, have always been an annoyance for programmers and systems administrators: Online support groups are full of work-arounds and suggestions for an assortment of DST-related glitches. For example, Cisco Systems Inc.'s technical support has pages of detailed technical information on solving DST problems afflicting its servers and routers, while Oracle Corp.'s online discussion forum is filled with posts from developers seeking help handling esoteric DST challenges.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more