Looking for proof of y2k vendor statements re: embedded systems being wrong

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Hello all,

Despite what I've read (see below), I still read about companies with embedded systems stating that their solution to prepare for the year 2000 is to rely totally upon vendor statements and to limit testing or replacement for cases only when (a) the vendor says it is NOT compliant and (b) the vendor does not respond to queries.

To some of us concerned about embedded systems, the above approach is seen to contains a lot of assumptions proved false throughout the embedded systems literature:

(a) that vendor statements about embedded systems Year 2000 compliance are substantially reliable and relevant to an end-user (an assumption documented many times to be false);

(b) that all copies of an identical device model will behave the same as they roll-over of the century (that is, the false assumption that 'type testing' is always valid);

(c) that stand-alone equipment Year 2000 compliance statements answers the question whether such equipment embedded in a network or complex of instruments will handle the roll-over of the century (that is, the false assumption that component compliance always equals implementation compliance).

At least five documents referenced at my web site show one or more of the above assumptions to be unreliable. The principal authorities noting such are David Hall, ComputerWeekly News (several referenced pieces in my various paper), the GM Testing Document, TransAlta Utilities, and the IEE Guidelines.

Okay, enough for background. I am interested in providing more substantial reasons than those given in the above cited documents. Can any of you on this list cite other documents or provide actual testing results that prove that the above criticized remediation approach can let non-compliant devices remain undetected in one's possession?

I do want to use any of your responses in an article that I am working on. Thank you in advance for permission to use your post. If you object, please state in your reply. (For those who are unfamiliar with me, I have written in 7 published articles on the embedded systems problem and have spoken at a SPG conference on the topic too--the articles are linked to at my home page--see my signature below).

Thanks! -- Roleigh Martin http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1998

Answers

If YOU don't know whether it is compliant or not by your actually testing in your environment, then you don't know. Suggest, which is my personal opinion and others working Y2K issues that you need to test, communicate with others in your area(s)/field, and check out some Y2K WWW sites. You can start with searching other Qs and As right on this site.

Also, check out: http://www.euy2k.com/ and http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Industry.

Also, do Net queries such as "embedded systems year 2000." Yahoo, and others using same or similar words.

I will get back with some more specific information from other searches I have been doing. Hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 1998


If YOU don't know whether it is compliant or not by your actually testing in your environment, then you don't know. Suggest, which is my personal opinion and others working Y2K issues that you need to test, communicate with others in your area(s)/field, and check out some Y2K WWW sites. You can start with searching other Qs and As right on this site.

Also, check out: http://www.euy2k.com/ and http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Industry.

Also, do Net queries such as "embedded systems year 2000." Yahoo, and others using same or similar words.

I will get back with some more specific information from other searches I have been doing. Hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 1998


There is a new device out that can check embedded systems. It has been reviewed and found to work. It can cut the time it takes to determine if embedded systems are at risk for Y2K failure. Be aware: it does not "fix" the embedded system, it evaluates it for compliency. The time it saves alone makes it a "silver Pellet". (Not a silver bullet but one of many silver pellets to shoot the Y2K problem down). http://www.wsp-y2k.com/

-- Anonymous, July 05, 1998

Moderation questions? read the FAQ