Those of us who are not sanguine about the outcome of y2k should continually ask the optimists to answer the following question:

Given the systemic nature of y2k, why should anyone remain optimistic without third party evidence that END TO END TESTING HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED?

Anyone with a modicum of computer experience knows that if something can go wrong IT WILL GO WRONG and EVEN RIGOROUS END TO END TESTING does not guarantee even minimal success because, by definition, testing is artificial and, at best, only a reasonable (limited to 'first order' effects due to time and money constraints) approximation of what will happen when these systems operate in the real world.

Our present 'network' evolved over decades with each new element thoroughly (at least most of the time) scrutinized before implementation. Back then, responsible project management required that anything new had a fall back system (the old system, for example) in case of trouble. Even under the best of circumstances there were still major disruptions and many costly projects were abandoned. Thus, the 'network' could expand OVER MANY YEARS by trial and error. This 'network' acted as a monolithic entity because any change was infinitesimal compared to the whole.

Contrast that historical 'standard' with what lies ahead of us. With 11 months to go there is almost no government agency or corporation of any significance that claims to have even INTERNALLY compliant systems and without dependable internal systems, no significant progress can be made with the estimated 100 million EXTERNAL data exchanges required to maintain 'network' reliability. And since there is no acceptable stantard y2k 'fix' each of these external projects requires developing custom bridges, and filters with all communication passing under the nose of EACH company's legal department which should really speed things up.

How anyone can remain optimistic under this scenario is prima facie evidence that they are ignorant of what lies before us, or are emotionally unprepared to deal with these facts on a rational basis.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 26, 1999

Answers

How can anyone remain optimistic? It's simple: it's called Wishful Thinking.

As pessimistic as I am about the eventual outcome of y2k (along with numerous friends), we tend to [sometimes] lapse into an attitude where we hope we'll just wake up one morning and discover that everything really did work out ok. It's difficult to explain, but I feel like we're living in a state of semi-sleep (actually more like a nightmare). It's difficult living from day to day, not knowing what's really going to happen in a year.

Maybe we will all wake up one day and this will be not so bad. But I'm preparing for the worst anyway.

-- Lou Navarro (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), January 26, 1999.

Many systems go into production without any end-to-end testing.

The government conducts IV&V more than any other organization, in my experience. Big business does not spend the time or money to put new systems out there. Time to market is essential in business.

Systems that go into production are new development.

Maintenance (which is how I view Y2K) continues without end-to-end testing, constantly going into production with regression testing. The problem with Y2K is very low tech. It's more of a management problem than new technology that goes out there. It's not rocket science.

These statements do not imply that there aren't problems with this approach. Lots of new development goes out with lots of things breaking. We fix those problems, find workarounds, and life goes on.

There will be an "end-to-end" test of the telecommunciations network this quarter. http://www.nric.org/meetings/ Check out this site to find out more.

Yes, Y2K is global, affecting all systems at one time. How this plays into the problems which will occur is still an unknown. But I believe the problems will be managable. Hope I'm right and you're wrong.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 26, 1999.

I agree with T. Maria, who raises doubts about the supposed "thoroughness" of software testing. The newer systems, which are very complex, are often released in beta versions, then slowly patched where necessary. Netscape has been following this model, with only occasional embarassments. The more recent methodology here can be analogized to: Shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out. Meaning, release it, fix only the intersection of (a) what breaks and (b) what the users complain about breaking.

-RC

-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 26, 1999.

Roger,

Im an optimist, and I expect a good portion of it to all go, partially, if not completely, down. I am pessimistic about the computers and embedded chips and the potential global systemic failures. I am saddened by the potential for horrendous loss of life. I am angered by the governments actions and reactions.

Yet, I am STILL optimistic about the nature of the human spirt to rise up and overcome challenges and obstacles, together, no matter how bad (or how good) and no matter what shape the heavy metal is eventually in. Can we prepare for it? Yes. Will we? That is the question. (Asked of our government leaders who are into mis- leading).

After all, Attitude Is Everything.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000ESI

The sun also rises and the flowers still bloom. (Hope we all can).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 26, 1999.

While I have points of agreement with Troll Maria (Y2K is maintenance, of course) and Cat ("reiterative released betas" as production is a reality, though whether it is a benefit to users is for another day).

There is at least one order of magnitude difference in complexity, chaos and brittleness between even complex PC software (Netscape) and 20 to 40 year old enterprise systems, most built in archeological layers of obsolete languages and protocols. The way in which systems accrue brittleness statistically as patches-on-patches increase is well-accepted in the industry. Simply put, they "wear out".

Moreover, while Y2K is maintenance, the vast number of fixes and the complexity of managing the interfaces between systems (who is using which date protocols *now* and can we communicate?) dictate a level of testing (most emphatically including end-to-end test) that is equivalent to testing for new systems. Y2K is a singular maintenance problem.

Of course, I *hope* that Troll is right and I'm wrong. I'm going to LOVE being totally wrong next year should it happen. I will joyfully accept millions of "I told you so's" from the Troll. But hoping has nothing to do with this subject on 1/26/99.

BTW, the grapevine says that Microsoft software, notably NT5, is beginning to bump up against the legacy and complexity issues of truly "large" software. I can't comment, except that one needs to add at least another decade to the evolution of Windoze before we are talking apples-to-apples (oops).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 26, 1999.

Roger: To get a perspective on y2k denial, let me tell you this story: A few years ago I bought a new house with a sprinkler system. The water bill was killing me, so I decided to "wash down" a shallow well, even though I was right next to a brackish water river. It's OK I thought, I'm far enough away. At 23 ft I hit a nice aquifer. The water looked very clear, but seemed a little salty. It's OK I thought, its well water So I bought a pump and hooked it up to the sprinkler system and began watering the lawn regularly. After a few days I noticed that when the water dried on my car's windshield, it left a residue like salt water. It's OK I thought, there's sediment in the water. A few weeks later my lawn started tuning brown. It's OK I thought, I must be overwatering. I had the water analyzed. It was salt water.

I wanted that well to work so badly that my denial was complete. I think the case is the same with y2k and testing.

Marie: Re: y2k is only maintenance project. This is true for small companies, but not for large companies and large systems. It has been cited elsewhere that the metrics for large y2k efforts may be worse than those for new development (basically because the orgs that have waited this late to fix their stuff are incompetent to begin with).

Bigdog: NT as a replacement for UNIX and MVS is a joke. It's that kind of thinking by management and junior systems folk's that have got us into this y2k situation in the first place. Take a look at this:

http://www.gcn.com/gcn/1998/July13/cov2.htm

The banks have come to a similar conclusion, and there are many stories like this out there. Somebody even wrote a program that queries a web server's host OS and guess what the majority of web systems are at Microsoft? Solaris...

-- a (a@a.a), January 26, 1999.

a ---- agree 100%. NT is legitimately complex, but much of its complexity is user interface, etc. Neither UNIX or NT are capable of scaling to enterprise level. Period.

Beyond the "compliany percentage" joke, the biggest remaining confusion about Y2K is the assumed equivalency or continuity between systems of different qualitative types. I over-simplify but:

... PC level (Mac OS, DOS/Windoze98) systems and applications are tier one.

... Departmental level (NT, most-not-all UNIX, VAX) are tier two.

... Enterprise level (MVS and equivalents) are tier three.

What we should be discussing is: how much of "enterprise level" must be fixed and brought through acceptance test to avoid Y2K meltdown? Is it happening? The reports from the front are discouraging, to say the least.

We can survive tier one and tier two disasters, though they will be ugly. We can't survive a tier three disaster. This has nothing to do with puerile wars between PC guys and big iron guys: who cares? All the parts of the ecology have a value place, but they are not all "mission-critical" for Y2K.

And for those who think this NG is just rehashing the obvious over and over about Y2K, if so, why isn't something like this conventional thinking even on this NG? After Y2K, we must think more intelligently about our systems.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 26, 1999.

Dianne is a cockamamie idiot. No other word for it and I don't mince words. 'Human spirit' remediates NOTHING at all.

But that is all that optimists who chose optimism over facts have, nothing but cackamamie baseless optimism.

No eveidence that enough is being done, no minir fraction of ANY industry doen and specious dolts like Dianne whimper about human spirit and optimism.

It helps them sleep at night while they ignore the facts.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 26, 1999.

"Yes, Y2K is global, affecting all systems at one time. How this plays into the problems which will occur is still an unknown. But I believe the problems will be managable. Hope I'm right and you're wrong." Troll Maria

I can't help but make a comparison between the statement above and my early programming experience. Instead of writing a few lines of code that corresponded to a logical sequence and then running the program to test for syntax and/or logic errors, I would continue on my merry way typing in the entire program. Needless to say, debugging was a nightmare, and more often than not, I had to (quite literally) chuck the whole thing out and start over.

Well, with so many upsets affecting the 'network' at the start of the new millennium, it is incomprehensible to me that ANYTHING useful will get accomplished, and in its place chaos and confusion could easily lead to poor decision making which will only make matters worse. To glibly say that we "just don't know what will happen" so let's just wait as see is as logical (and dangerous) as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater because we don't know for sure how people will react.

I can't think of a single historical example when mankind knew for certain that a future calamity was about to occur. Well, here we are at the pinnacle of our intelectual and scientific development, about to fall off a cliff and we're still debating whether we're going to bounce or go splat. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 26, 1999.

For those interested, the thread on Cowles' forum, "What Happened To Implementation?" is a parallel but complementary extension to the debate on this thread.

While it is too late for remediation, though, duh, it must and should continue full-speed, of course, for now (that is, January thru September). That's why Hamasaki gave away the store on his own remediation techniques "for free" in latest WRP.

For organizations with brains and managers who are responsible, there is still time in 1999 to institute remediation freeze on enterprise systems (10/31/99 at absolute latest, though that's a big joke in itself), do acceptance test and prepare for the bounce at the bottom of the cliff.

Again, that's why these thread debates are still RELEVANT. There are managers and programmers reading these threads who aren't posting but are thinking. And coding. And testing. I have a lotta respect for Runway Cat's postings but we can't be working on remediation up through 12/31/99. Yet, this seems to be the working plan in most organizations.

MESSAGE: IF YOU'RE A GEEK OR A MANAGER OF GEEKS WORKING ON ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO GO BALLISTIC ON THE SUBJECT OF REMEDIATION/TEST FREEZE DATES IN 1999. YES, IT WILL MAKE AN ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, MAYBE A CRITICAL ONE.

There is a narrow, unknown line between TEOTWAWKI, which is easily survivable world-wide, however lamentable and Infomagic. Who cares about Infomagic's math or Dr. Altman's, for that matter. The line exists. We don't know how close enterprise systems will stray to the line. Guess what: this doombrooder doesn't want us to find out, never did. 5% more remediation/test won't help us back off that line. Acceptance testing and REAL contingency planning based on that will ... help.

Sorry to shout, guys, but the theatre is on fire. Everything short of this approach on the technical Y2K front in 99 is just BS.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 26, 1999.

Well Doc you surely made me laugh. "Well, with so many upsets affecting the 'network' at the start of the new millennium, it is incomprehensible to me that ANYTHING useful will get accomplished, and in its place chaos and confusion could easily lead to poor decision making which will only make matters worse. To glibly say that we "just don't know what will happen" so let's just wait as see is as logical (and dangerous) as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater because we don't know for sure how people will react."

Maybe you can't comprehend anything useful getting accomplished because you're not a doer. What poor decision making are you refering to? The decision to fix or find workarounds will be made.

I did not say "let's just wait as see", or even came close to "let's do nothing". I didn't say that Y2K was not a problem; it is a problem. Companies are throwing big bucks at this problem. There are companies out there remediating code, testing, and moving on to contingency planning. My point was what will happen is anybody's guess.

BTW, your mathematical model stinks. The more you put into the equation (of course) the more chance of something breaking. Things will break on 1/1/00 but will it cause a catastrope? I disagree with you.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 26, 1999.

Maria:

I'm happy you finally got the point. "The more things that go into the model, the more chance something will break" That's called a SYSTEMIC problem. We're finally on the same wavelength. And if getting called names while you're having a tantrum is the price I have to pay for finally getting through, so be it.

And I'm glad you remain optimistic...helps keep the store shelves full.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 26, 1999.

Milne, you picked on the wrong gal, Diane gets and sees the facts faster than you do.

Just what IS your fact Milne? That we'll all die in 11 months and you're going to be a happy man?

Go buy another gun or something, you're using up too much bandwith.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 26, 1999.

Milne, I agree with Chris. This forum was a LOT better place before YOU came along, and we had NO trouble finding information without your "help". Why don't you and Flint take your crap back to the other forum? Do us ALL a big favor. It's disgusting how you come in and think you have to TAKE OVER. Get a REAL life!

-- MAKE ME PUKE (sick@of.Milne), January 26, 1999.

Ok Doc here's my question, do you see any of the encapsulation or windowing techniques offering any help with this problem given that we don't have a lot of time left? Also I have heard of encapsulation many months ago, so why is it such a big deal now? One last thing with the rest of the world in deep trouble could there be any way out of this mess any time real soon? BTW I do appreciate your input into this forum and hope that you continue to share your thoughts. Tman

-- Tman (Tman@hopeful.com), January 26, 1999.

Don't worry about Paul Milne, he is taost. You can" brag about all the food tou have stored on your 20 acre plot and if it goes bad,not be in big trouble. He has put his family at severe risk. He won't have a chance. Prepare, stay invisible, the worst thing you can do is let people know you are storing food.

-- thinkIcan (ThinkIcan@make.it), January 26, 1999.

"How anyone can remain optimistic under this scenario is prima facie evidence that they are ignorant of what lies before us, or are emotionally unprepared to deal with these facts on a rational basis."

Dr. Altman,

For many of us, remaining steadfastly optimistic is prima facie evidence that we are aware of the possibilities of multiple complex systems' failures and that we are emotionally prepared to live with their unintended consequences.

So, as an eternal optimist ("human spirit", not to be confused with Candide)I ask you, "How are you emotionally preparing for the unintended consequences of systemic Y2K failures?"

Critt Jarvis

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 26, 1999.

Marie: you are a dumbass and I hate you.

Just kidding...I don't hate you.

-- a (a@a.a), January 26, 1999.

Critt --- Since I'm one of the pessimists who has been trashing optimism today on the NG generally, I want to make it plain my focus is on optimism about **Y2K** and its direct, immediate consequences: that is, I see no logical reason for any optimism (pollyanna) on that score. None.

However, one can well be optimistic for any number of reasons about a further future, whether 2001 or 2050, based quite appropriately on an underlying world view.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 26, 1999.

Paul,

As always, your spirt could use a little readjustment. Maybe the accurate term is re-alignment.

IMHO, TEOTWAWKI is globalthermal nuclear war. Less than that and youll still have your bunker intact, Paul. Maybe.

Ask yourself ... not Paul, he has all his answers ... would you prefer to be around negative neighbors or positive ones in the face of extreme Y2K adversity? Prepared or unprepared ones at all levels ... physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually?

Thats partly the difference between an experienced optimist and a card-carrying pessimist.

Remediation is no longer the only appropriate action on a global scale ... preparedness is also extremely key.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 26, 1999.

Big Dog,

I understand where you're coming from.

An FYI on me...

Last July, I spontaneously gave termination notice as a public safety software vendor's company intranet developer - "A very stable job", my wife often reminds me. It is simply impossible for me to re-enter the trance state of "business as usual".

I live in Wilmington, North Carolina. Nuclear power generation (Brunswick), Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal, Port of Wilmington, General Electric (nuclear), Dow, Corning, pharmaceuticals...

It is only by the grace of a positive human spirit that I will sleep well tonight.

~C~

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 26, 1999.

T-man: All of the techniques used to fix the date problem (encapsulation, windowing, 4-field, etc.) have their advantages and disadvantages. But don't lose sight of the big picture: the variety of methods available to fix the two field date simply adds another dimension to the systemic nature of the problem since custom bridges and filters will be necessary to facilitate the millions of data exchanges needed to maintain the integrity of the 'network'.

As far as how do we get out of this mess we're in... Look at it this way. Computer technology is barely 50 years old. We're like adolescents... we have lots of enthusiasm (just read a few of Troll Maria's posts), but we're bound to make mistakes. Some of them will be real doozies. It's just part of growing up, so to speak. One way or another, we're gonna pick up the pieces and start again, but the next time, perhaps, with a little more humility.

"So, as an eternal optimist ("human spirit", not to be confused with Candide)I ask you, "How are you emotionally preparing for the unintended consequences of systemic Y2K failures?"

Critt: By helping my family and community prepare as best I can relieves some of the anxiety. Also, reflecting on why we are here on this Earth in the first place helps me a great deal. As they say, there are no athiests in foxholes.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 26, 1999.

Most of you posters appear to be of the pencil-pusher types.

Me, I am still looking for the 'right' kind of work and have elimanated taxi-cab driver, offshore boat-hand, bell-hop, construction eletrician, poultry-house construction, car salesman, clerk at a 7-11, and computer jerk for a dozen computer companies.

There is a small but important difference between pencil pushers and functionally illiterate Joe Sixpacks. 'They Are Not The Least Bit Concern About Moral Considerations As Long as They Get What They Want'.

Paul Milne's post could inform and condition you to the many two- legged animals out there waiting for the chaotic conditions to get what they will never get if nothing changes.

Keep on posting, Paul Milne. I like your realistic style.

-- Jerk what else (old lucker@net.com), January 26, 1999.

That's right Jerk, then Milne will have conditioned, through his boot camp tactics of crushing free thinking and spirits, a whole cult followers of another kind of two-legged animals . As long as they remain around his bunker...

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 26, 1999.

"How are you emotionally preparing for the unintended consequences of systemic Y2K failures?"

That is a very good question Doc! At this point I really don't want to believe the very words I am telling others. Things like the GAO says things are pretty scary, and by the shear systemic nature of this huge problem I just can't see with my small brain how it will all be fixed, not nation wide not world wide, NOT AT ALL! At my work my friends think I am some sort of nut. However I am the programmer with the degree and the understanding of how the game works. I have programmed in 9 different languages worked with 3 different types of databases, Debase5, Access and Oracle, which includes SQL. I have a background in web development and my own web page on the net. And yet none of this has helped me to come to grips with what lies ahead. I have tried to listen to the voice of logic however there are so many opinions from people I respect, some days I just don't know what to believe anymore! I have made preparation and I have a plan B incase things go really bad. Emotionally I am not ok because I can not deny what I understand about computers that they are machines that don't care, or understand that it's cold outside and people need heat. THEY DON'T CARE! And when things stop making sense to them they stop. I have seen it a thousand times in the programs that I have written. I AM NOT OK! And no one understands anymore except my geek friends, they understand and they are the only people I can talk to anymore! Tman

-- Tman (Tman@notok.com), January 27, 1999.

Tman:

Behind all the logic, behind all the debates, behind everything we do and say, it's all connected to how we view what our existance really means.

I take comfort in thinking that we are put here to gain life experiences. We will make every mistake imaginable, hurt alot of people including ourselves, but eventually we will come away BETTER than we were at the start. It's the process of reaching our full potential, and it can only be accomplished by confronting "life" as society (we're all part of the grand plan) has created it at this point in time.

So the PROCESS of gaining empathy for our fellow man, and the wisdom to do what's right is everything (truth is NOT relative, depsite what the meaning of "is" is). Most of the time it's a very slow process, but we happen to be living in "interesting times" so some of us will undergo the "aha" phenomenon which will catapult the rate of our inward development without ever realizing it happened. You are probably in this small group. So count yourself lucky, and hang on, it's gonna be one helluva ride.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 27, 1999.

My dear Roger, the fact, that you call this statement your mathematical model stinks a tantrum and name calling, only reflects your insecurity and inability to accept criticism. I guess we disagree on a few more things.

You want name calling: You pompous ass bastard! You couldnt develop a mathematical model to find your way out of a paper bag, let alone model real world events that could occur as a result of Y2K. Do you know anything about OR or any modeling techniques? Do you know anything about mathematical simulations? Do you know any optimization methods? Probably not. This is not a tantrum, Roger, just a statement of how incredibly stupid you are.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 27, 1999.

Oh.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 27, 1999.

I have a new hero on this forum and her name is Troll Maria. You go girl!! I got goosebumps from that last one.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), January 27, 1999.

Deano and Troll Maria - you are both living up to your reputations - full marks.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 27, 1999.

I'd always wondered if there was a correlation between brain farts and goosebumps.

-- a (a@a.a), January 27, 1999.

Geez......you 2 pricks are so predictable. Hey Andy - how about a beer?? what a whiney whimp....... Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), January 28, 1999.

Aside from the name calling, and generally idiotic bahavior of some of the (I guess) "optimimists", I haven't detected any answer to my original question, or WHY the model is no good or any suggestions for a better one. Perhaps it's time to move on before this thread sets a new low is poor manners.

The sad part is that those who act out in such an inappropriate manner really DO stifle an exchange of ideas because it creates such a corrosive invironment that few are willing to "expose" a point of view that will probably be flammed by a few ill-mannered participants who do not agree, or, perhaps more likely, just need to draw attention to themselves. The net result is we do not get a real chance chance to explore another point of view.

The minute the dialogue turns from a discussion to mean-spirited arguing nothing gets useful gets accomplished and "one upsmanship" rules the day. It appears that this is where we are now. So it's time to move on and hope that we will have better luck on other threads in the future.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 28, 1999.

Sorry for the typos. Here's another try.

Aside from the name calling, and generally idiotic bahavior of some of the (I guess) "y2k optimimists", I haven't detected any answer to my original question, or WHY the model is no good or any suggestions for a better one. Perhaps it's time to move on before this thread sets a new low is poor manners.

The sad part is that those who act out in such an inappropriate manner really DO stifle an exchange of ideas because it creates such a corrosive environment that few are willing to "expose" a point of view that will probably be flammed by a few ill-mannered participants who do not agree, or, perhaps more likely, just need to draw attention to themselves. The net result is we do not get a real chance to explore another point of view.

The minute the dialogue turns from a discussion to mean-spirited arguing nothing useful gets accomplished and "one upsmanship" rules the day. It appears that this is where we are now. So it's time to move on and hope that we will have better luck on other threads in the future.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 28, 1999.

Doc, your orig post ask interesting question, but I can't help but wonder if it isn't to some degree rhetorical.

You say you programmed - unless it was for the likes of NASA or some type of high powered engineering endeavor (from your comments about deugging I can presume), you understand 'by the seat of your pants'. You know only too well that serial sequential beta's are and have been the rule across vast areas of business (Yes, basic testing is done, but in 20 years I have never seen a project plan that include test parameters and plans, then again I've seen more projects without test plans altogether than with them.)

You also know that every day it is on the fly fixes that maintain the illusion of business as usual. You know that lots and lots of Y2K patches are being applied, untested, everyday. So is there any justification for being optimistic? Yes - because lots and lots is being done now. (Not every patch you wrote was bad, given specific symtoms, I'll bet many them solved the problem they were supposed to on the first shot.)

So when the clock rolls, there will be problems but not as many as there would have been. And (hopefully) armies of IS staff will grab the missed problems and the bad fixes and repair. Just as they do every day now. The big difference is we'll be REALLY BUSY and it won't be business as ususal.

The only reason to give up on all threads of optimism - if the geeks bug out.

-- Another Lurker (112277.2114@compuserve.com), January 28, 1999.

I think you WILL BE "really busy", but it won't be just another day at the office if the lights are flickering and telecom gets interrupted, and the traffic lights don't work, and the water isn't flowing, and the toilet doesn't flush, and ...on and on. But to get back to my original question: Without confirmed end-to-end testing how can you remain optimistic when so many things can "go bump in the night" virtually at the same time?

Assuming the lights stay on, you may be really busy, but will it amount to anything?

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), January 28, 1999.

Another Lurker ---- yes, the geeks/geekettes do amazing things every day with patches to keep things operational and you're right, life-cycle testing and all the other goodies (design reviews, code inspections, test plans) are mainly wishful thinking in most shops ("we don't have enough time for that.") And, yes, lots of Y2K fixes are already "out there." Good.

The diff as often pointed out is the systemic nature of the issue (everywhere and in everything) and the simultaneous release (given the scope of the problem, "all of 99" is simultaneous). And the infrastructure risks/embedded systems (can't code if no lights).

My point lately on a number of threads has been: we can't pretend that patches can be applied willy-nilly until Dec. 31. If we don't do the equivalent of acceptance testing by October, adding stuff after that will be a disastrous minus. We must freeze utterly, test-run and face the music on contingency planning. E.g, do some.

Then, just maybe, if we're extraordinarily lucky and the lights/phones stay on, the geeks can make a difference > Jan. 3, 2000. GI?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 28, 1999.