Best summary on the seriousness Y2K that I've ever seen : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I just saw this today for the first time. It's the best summary of Y2K I've ever seen. It answers the objections of a pollyanna, one by one, and then uses a whole slew of authoritative, up-to-date links to document the reasons for Y2K being a deadly serious issue.

"y2k retort: my letter to a pollyanna"

Bookmark it!

-- Kevin (, December 16, 1998


Good link Kevin. Well thought out rebuttals of the pollyanna thoughts complete with links to back up the arguments with. Since it was written on 12/11, I looked at Doug's site just now and was hoping that he had posted this there (as requested by Mike) but I couldn't find it.

One minor point of clarification I would have made to the author was with his remark regarding Unix systems being able to handle year 2000 dates: Be careful with this. Unix has different 'flavors', each with varying compliance levels depending on the platform, version of the OS and patches needed where applicable. An example is the popular SUN/Solaris platform. Version 2.6 is Y2K OK but 2.5 is not until you apply the OS patches.

-- Rob Michaels (, December 16, 1998.

Good comments and "come-backs." Thank you.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (, December 16, 1998.

Good Kevin. There are a couple investigative journalists who need a copy of this...


-- Diane J. Squire (, December 16, 1998.

Thanks for the reference. :-)

-- No Spam Please (, December 16, 1998.

Could someone email me this article. I was not able to get it.

-- Linda A. (, December 16, 1998.

Version 2.6 is Y2K OK but 2.5 is not until you apply the OS patches.

2.6 needs patches as well! See Sun's website (Solaris 2.6 Operating Environment)

audit reduce/c2 cron patch ow/xterm (Optional)

-- Richard Dale (, December 17, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ