Is y2k really that big an issue?
good...@my-dejanews.com
I honestly feel that there is enough time to solve the problem and that it is
not that big of an issue. I do not think I would go as far as storing food
once the clock strikes. I just don't feel it is that serious and someone
will find a solution, and corporations will take the proper measures to make
certain their computers agree with the 00. GoodKarma
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
fed...@halifax.com
good...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I have been surfing the net researching for a university paper on the y2k.
>
> I honestly feel that there is enough time to solve the problem and that it is
> not that big of an issue. I do not think I would go as far as storing food
> once the clock strikes. I just don't feel it is that serious and someone
> will find a solution, and corporations will take the proper measures to make
> certain their computers agree with the 00. GoodKarma
Your second paragraph 'belies' the first sentence that you wrote above.
"I have been surfing the net researching ..." You obviously have not done Any
research at all. Secondly, where you say that you 'honestly feel' such and
such, I could not care less about what you 'feel'. I suppose that you were
trying to express what you 'think', but you don't do that either.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
Paul Milne
"The road to TEOTWAWKI is paved with good expectations"
Supernews User
we are headed for the 1830s, perhaps they are right, time will tell--but I
believe it will be more like the 1930s--think Tom Joad and the "Grapes of
Wrath"--masses of humanity uprooted from their homes cluttering the highways
going to nowhere--perhaps they saw that handbill--electricty and water
available in California!--Pick peaches for Electricty!--or ssomething like
that...The potential for a great catastrophe is huge. The way everything is
interconnected boggles even my little mind. remember, Your University will
not open for spring sememster in the year 2000--not if plant maintenence can
not guarantee the safety of the buildings (i.e. electricty, heat, water,
things like that--) So what will you do? Writing a paper on y2k seems like
a noble thing to do, like those endless debates on abortion, or capital
punishment--Will it happen? DUH! If I where you, I would get down on my
knees and pray to whoever that all the little children will have something
to eat--that millions will not suffer because of man's folly--But Millions
will suffer--millions will die--around the world and nation.
YOU can write a paper , today I will be getting another 25 pound sack of
pinto beans and put them up--Spices gota remember spices--NO--go write your
paper--by the time you realize the implications of it all, it will be toooo
late, just don't come sniffing around my chicken coop.
aka-Big Kahuna, purveyor of fine scents--running a y2k special on egyptian
musk incense-- :)
In another life we had an expression "Vive le morte, vive le guerre, vive
le sacre mercenaire"--guess I'll have to dust off those skills--
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the the World's Discussions & Usenet
Bill Hoyt
good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<72mshr$elv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I have been surfing the net researching for a university paper on the y2k.
>
>I honestly feel that there is enough time to solve the problem and that it
is
>not that big of an issue.
Before you decide whether there is enough time, I would ask what experience
you have in delivering enterprise-wide and industry-wide IT solutions.
Based on the fact that you are doing a university paper, I assume you have
very little (I could be wrong). The decision of whether there is enough
time is based on how much work there is do, what point the company started,
and how serious they are about fixing it (by "serious" I mean are they
willing to sacrifice other company goals to give Y2K the resources it
needs).
It has been my experience (10+ years), that:
Projects of more than a hundred man-years of work are nearly universally
late.
Nearly all of the fortune 1000 will have project that are that size, at
minimum.
The companies which started early (1995-6) are now close to finishing, which
leaves the question open: where are those who started last year and this
(which makes up the majority of them)?
Based on currently published statistics on the federal (U.S.) Y2K effort,
not a single major department made the target date of September 30th for
coding, and most will have at least part of their inventory unremediated on
New Year's Evil.
So to say that there is enough time (which I think is another way of saying
"we can make it), you are going against both the cumulative experience of IT
and the currently available information on projects in progress.
Whether it is "that big of an issue" is going to depend entirely on whether
and how badly we need correct information. There are companies which are
spending hundreds of millions (current total estimates of budgets are nearly
a trillion dollars), I think they would not agree that it will not be a big
issue.
>I do not think I would go as far as storing food once the clock strikes.
The terrible thing about gambling is that it's not apparent whether you've
lost unitl you've lost. If you wait until the clock strikes to store food
and it turns out you need it, you will not be able to get it, because
everyone else will be in your boat.
>I just don't feel it is that serious and someone
>will find a solution, and corporations will take the proper measures to
make
>certain their computers agree with the 00.
There is an assumption buried in tis sentence, and it's one that I see
often. That assumption is that there is one "solution", one riddle to be
unraveled, and the problem will be over. A cursory glance at the available
documentation will show this to be false, but I will list a few which occur
in one specific area (please remember that this is but one of many), with
which I am familiar:
1. There are certain COBOL programs which calculate based on the date, and
for which a two-year date will give incorrect results. The solution is
easy...expand the date or "window" it, so that the application will perform
correctly.
2. There are certain COBOL programs which use the date as a table position
(i.e. year 99 goes in position 99), and for which position '00' will cause
the program to end abnormally (abend). This program structure needs to be
changed, and analysis is necessary based on the program.
3. There are certain COBOL programs which use "special characters", like
using '99' for "forever" or "end-of-file". These programs must be analyzed
and changed.
4. There are certain files which use dates as "key fields" in key-sequenced
data sets, or sort on them...different solutions are necessary for different
programs.
5. There are some utilities used in conjunction with these programs which
will not work with newer "compliant" applications, and for which source code
is not available (it was never purchased from the vendor). To fix these,
the utility must be replaced or another utility installed which allows the
prior one to work (certain assembler calls are this way).
There are completely different issues with PCs, embedded systems, mainframe
systems software and many others.
As you can see, there are many solutions, and if no new problems are
discovered (like time dilation), we have solutions for them all. It is
simply a question of whether we have time to implement them and whether the
proper resources will be allocated. If you listen to the geeks in this
forum, you will discover 2 things: some companies are and some companies
aren't.
Whether Y2K turns out do be a "big deal" will depend on the proportion of
those 2 things.
Bill Hoyt
It ain't over until it's over.
Bill Hoyt
Lane Core Jr. wrote in message <364f7412...@news.sgi.net>...
>[to comp.software.year-2000]
>
>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:23:49 -0600, "Bill Hoyt" <bill...@my-dejanews.com>
>wrote the following:
>
>>2. There are certain COBOL programs which use the date as a table
position
>>(i.e. year 99 goes in position 99), and for which position '00' will cause
>>the program to end abnormally (abend). This program structure needs to be
>>changed, and analysis is necessary based on the program.
>
>two-digit year being "00".
>
That one came from a WorkComp program called "B157" (you know, name your
programs A001, A002...A999, 'till you get to B157). The program created a
report, based on a table, which displayed work comp premium and claims by
year for the state of New Jersey, going back about 20 years (rolling). It
was written in 1971. In about 1995, I saw that and left a comment in the
code to the effect that "This program will abend if values for 2000 are
entered" and added displays which would tell the poor sap who got the
midnight call what happened.
Of course, we didn't re-write it at the time, plans were in place to replace
the entire work comp reporting structure *any time now*.
As far as I know, it's still running.
Bill Hoyt
Lane Core Jr.
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:23:49 -0600, "Bill Hoyt" <bill...@my-dejanews.com>
wrote the following:
>2. There are certain COBOL programs which use the date as a table position
>(i.e. year 99 goes in position 99), and for which position '00' will cause
>the program to end abnormally (abend). This program structure needs to be
>changed, and analysis is necessary based on the program.
Oh. I never thought of that problem before: invalid subscripts based on
two-digit year being "00".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lane Core Jr. elc...@sgi.net http://users.sgi.net/~elcore
I welcome e-mail replies. :) But I have no time for e-mail debates. :(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See my "Links to Y2K Articles, News & Sites" on the World Wide Web at
http://users.sgi.net/~elcore/elc_y2k.htm
"More software projects go awry for lack of calendar time than for all
other causes combined". Frederick P. Brooks, _The Mythical Man-Month_
Gary L. Smith
: On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:23:49 -0600, "Bill Hoyt" <bill...@my-dejanews.com>
: wrote the following:
: >2. There are certain COBOL programs which use the date as a table position
: >(i.e. year 99 goes in position 99), and for which position '00' will cause
: >the program to end abnormally (abend). This program structure needs to be
: >changed, and analysis is necessary based on the program.
: Oh. I never thought of that problem before: invalid subscripts based on
: two-digit year being "00".
We've encountered the same sort of problem in other, non-Y2K situations,
and it's not restricted to COBOL. You can do it in Assembler, and PL/I,
and FORTRAN, and SAS, and in all of those microcomputer wannabe languages
as well.
--
Gary L. Smith g...@infinet.com
Columbus, Ohio
Sava Malbaski
>>Your second paragraph 'belies' the first sentence that you wrote above.
"I have been surfing the net researching ..." You obviously have not done
Any research at all. Secondly, where you say that you 'honestly feel' such
and such, I could not care less about what you 'feel'. I suppose that you
were trying to express what you 'think', but you don't do that either. <<
intelligence centres? When you fall out of bed in the morning (or crawl out
of the swamp, whichever), what is it makes you decide to go hunting for
people to insult for no apparent reason? Do us all a favour and go back to
masturbating your rifles on the misc-survivalism ng and leave those with
better than room-temperature IQ's to discuss the Y2K issues, okay?
To respond to the original post: Yes, there is a problem. However, it _is_
soluble, providing people actually apply themselves. There has been a lot of
news about this or that government, department or corporation not being
ready, but at the end of the day the world just ain't gonna end over it.
Bottom line, the problem can be fixed. It's going to take a lot more effort
than it should have, but I wouldn't move into Mr. Milne's li'l refuge in the
woods just yet. Mind you, I wouldn't move in there anyway; I don't trust
anyone whose gun has a higher IQ than he does...
Sav
"A moral dilemma is defined as giving a pacifist a gun and pointing him at a
survivalist".
Somedude
--
[ Don't blame me blame someone else ]
Ed Carp
And Visual Basic as well. Just because Micro$oft says that VB is "Y2K
compliant" doesn't mean that automatically every program written in VB (and
there are *lots* of them!) will be.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG - e...@pobox.com - 94036...@mobile.att.net for URGENT
messages only!
Web: http://www.pobox.com/~erc
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Sava Malbaski wrote:
> Tell me something, Milne, is it a congenital defect in your higher
> intelligence centres?
His inability to suffer fools gladly conveys no information about his
intelligence. However, I would never hire him as a diplomat.
> To respond to the original post: Yes, there is a problem. However, it _is_
> soluble, providing people actually apply themselves
The issue is not whether it is soluble in the abstract; the issue is whether it
is soluble in the time remaining, given the available resources.
> . There has been a lot of
> news about this or that government, department or corporation not being
> ready, but at the end of the day the world just ain't gonna end over it.
No, we could exterminate ourselves entirely and the world wouldn't end. Some of
us, however, not only want the world to continue existing but also want for our
family and friends to continue living.
> Bottom line, the problem can be fixed.
Fine: what is your evidence that it can be fixed?
> Mind you, I wouldn't move in there anyway; I don't trust
> anyone whose gun has a higher IQ than he does...
Ad hominem arguments don't bolster your case.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Reply to host nsf (dot) gov, user smetz
Spam
> I hate COBOL.
Well at least the damn PIC clauses. lol.
Frank Ney
"Bill Hoyt" <bill...@my-dejanews.com> to write:
>In about 1995, I saw that and left a comment in the
>code to the effect that "This program will abend if values for 2000 are
>entered" and added displays which would tell the poor sap who got the
>midnight call what happened.
Bet you a nickel some PHM-wannabe had those displays removed.
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
- --
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uhh, I think so, Brain, but how are we going to get all of the computers to
fail all at the same time?"
phracker
Do you mean to tell me that it didn't?
Sheesh, if it did, everything would be fixed by now!!!!
[sarcasm off]
Lane Core Jr. wrote in message <3650bd7e...@news.sgi.net>...
>[to comp.software.year-2000]
>
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:58:04 GMT, "Somedude"
><therealcoo...@home.com> wrote the following:
>
>> I hate COBOL.
>
>So do I.
Lane Core Jr.
Gary L. Smith
: I hate COBOL.
What a helpful and mature comment! Why would you think that anyone would
care about your opinion?
Big Bird says, "When you don't have anything constructive to say, you
should just shut the f*ck up."
Frank Ney
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <nos...@nsf.gov.invalid> to write:
>> Tell me something, Milne, is it a congenital defect in your higher
>> intelligence centres?
>
>His inability to suffer fools gladly conveys no information about his
>intelligence. However, I would never hire him as a diplomat.
I would, if my policy was "gunboat diplomacy."
>The issue is not whether it is soluble in the abstract; the issue is whether it
>is soluble in the time remaining, given the available resources.
Or, more correctly, given the resources the powers that be wish to expend on
said problem.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Frank Ney wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:14:22 -0500, an orbiting mind control laser caused
> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <nos...@nsf.gov.invalid> to write:
>
> >> Tell me something, Milne, is it a congenital defect in your higher
> >> intelligence centres?
> >
> >His inability to suffer fools gladly conveys no information about his
> >intelligence. However, I would never hire him as a diplomat.
>
> I would, if my policy was "gunboat diplomacy."
How about we hire him as our ambassador to Iraq, with a suitable escort? But he'll
have to complete the paperwork before he can get all of those A-10s.
> >The issue is not whether it is soluble in the abstract; the issue is whether it
> >is soluble in the time remaining, given the available resources.
>
> Or, more correctly, given the resources the powers that be wish to expend on
> said problem.
That was the problem once, when we had more time. It is no longer the problem. Now
the problem is what can be done at all, given maximum effort.
Maren Purves
> Gary L. Smith wrote in message ...
> >Lane Core Jr. (elc...@sgi.net) wrote:
> >: Oh. I never thought of that problem before: invalid subscripts based on
> >: two-digit year being "00".
> >
> >We've encountered the same sort of problem in other, non-Y2K situations,
> >and it's not restricted to COBOL. You can do it in Assembler, and PL/I,
> >and FORTRAN, and SAS, and in all of those microcomputer wannabe languages
> >as well.
>
> And Visual Basic as well. Just because Micro$oft says that VB is "Y2K
> compliant" doesn't mean that automatically every program written in VB (and
> there are *lots* of them!) will be.
I think this one is almost cute.
You can do that in just about any language. The only way of
circumventing is to have range-checking at compile/link time.
The only language I ever programmed in that had that by default
was ALGOL 60 (one of the reason why the compiler got so slow,
it checked everything).
Quite language independent, if you're using a OS without memory
protection (like, say, VxWorks). You can overrun, but you may never
find out what you're actually writing into.
Maren
Gary L. Smith
: You can do that in just about any language. The only way of
: circumventing is to have range-checking at compile/link time.
: The only language I ever programmed in that had that by default
: was ALGOL 60 (one of the reason why the compiler got so slow,
: it checked everything).
I believe you mean at _execution_ time, and of course, that would be way
too slow to be tolerable in many batch systems. The application should
be doing range checks where they make sense, but sadly many of them don't.
Frank Ney
This presumes the powers that be want maximum effort, a presumption much in
doubt.
tek-nerd
Frank Ney <cro...@access.digex.net> wrote in message
news:366148f9...@news.nycap.rr.com...
|On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:57:51 -0600, an orbiting mind control laser caused
|"Bill Hoyt" <bill...@my-dejanews.com> to write:
|
|>In about 1995, I saw that and left a comment in the
|>code to the effect that "This program will abend if values for 2000 are
|>entered" and added displays which would tell the poor sap who got the
|>midnight call what happened.
|
|Bet you a nickel some PHM-wannabe had those displays removed.
|
|