Dumping Y2K ready programs

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

You asked for it! I guess I'm being encouraged to post here. Here's one to think about. Yesterday, I posted "a simple programmers view", telling of a "successful" update to "new technology", a direct result of Y2K. This is about our #1 customer, the ONE that pays most of the bills here. If they went away, much of our company would go away. We would still have #2 and, maybe, #3. Afterall - they're Y2K ready! Here's where the fun starts. When #1 is moved to the new world of big, fast PC's, much, if not most of the mainframe work will be gone! But, we'll still have #2-3-??? on the old mainframe. #3 is smart. His programmer knew about the 00 problem years ago, and used a run-time parameter to get the date, instead of using the system date. He's good to go until the Y10K problem! #2 doesn't use any dates in calculations, a minor miracle! But #1 is gone, and it doesn't pay to keep the mainframe for #2-n. Guess what! We're going to convert working systems to "new technology". No big rush for this. We can keep the mainframe at 1900 for as long as needed. As long as #1 is happy... Signed, Over Worked

-- Sysman (working@it.edu), February 05, 1999


Is #1 dependent on vendors being Y2K compliant? I suppose if the electrical grid goes down it won't matter. So I guess this means you'll have a job on 1/1/00?

-- ~~ (~~@~~.com), February 05, 1999.

Sysman, I really do appreciate your posts. Please keep it up. We all have so much that we need to learn and understand. Your seeds of enlightenment are a great gift to all of us. Many thanks.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), February 05, 1999.

Ahh, and what happens to me, if I'm, say, #4?

-- Wiseguy (got@it.com), February 05, 1999.

Hi Wiseguy (or is it wise man?). You win the prize! Customers #4-n (n is about 50) could be in big trouble, if they have systems on our soon to be extinct mainframe! In 1997 we notified all such customers that our old IBM 4341 was not Y2K ready, and that we had no plans to update it. We had already committed to the "new technology". We did loose a few accounts over this - they deceided to keep their current systems, and find someone to make them Y2K OK. We lost a few others, unrelated to Y2K. We also gained a few new accounts, and their systems are/were developed using the new stuff. Some others had minor or no Y2K problems. They will be OK as long as we keep the mainframe. It will be with us, non-compliant, for at least a few more years. We still have to get #2-3 converted! We also had a few that GOT IT early. They are now on the conversion bus with #1. As for the rest, they do have significant Y2K problems. But, we are a small company, about 35 people. about half of our developers are working on conversions, and the other half working on the new stuff. They will ALL be busy for quite a while since we still have #2-3 to do. #1 is about 40% of our income, #2-3 about 25%, and the rest, including news about 35%. So, if you are one of those remaining clients, that hasn't GOT IT yet, and you ask us for help, you're in BIG trouble...

-- Sysman (working@it.edu), February 05, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ