Letter to Editor in Business Week says Programmers are storing food, expecting the worstgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
February 15, 1999
Programmers are storing food, expecting the worst
As a Cobol programmer fixing code for Y2K compliance for a large oil trading firm, I must strongly disagree with your conclusions in your recent editorial on Y2K.
I can assure you that most large companies are way behind schedule, including my own. Regrettably, these very same companies tell the general public everything is OK and not to worry when they know they have no chance of making the deadline.
Even though most large corporations will indeed finish their necessary code changes, they will not have enough time for testing. Testing is one of the biggest bugaboos in the whole Y2K fiasco. Also, there is no set protocol for date formatting using the popular "windowing" repair scheme between companies code repairs. Testing is at least 50 percent of most Y2K projects. There is a critical shortage of people qualified to test.
The situation is really quite desperate and most code programmers are indeed stocking up on food. Most people have no idea how severe and long-lasting the disruptions will be. Those who do not prepare may possibly die as a result of Y2K.
Another important area you did not mention was the dismal state of Y2K compliance of the federal government.
Most other countries are way behind us. We are not an island. Foreign supply chains will be a big problem.
Michael Taylor, email@example.com
-- a (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 1999
I agree, it's important to test even the simplest change to any program, not to mention a "full systems" test to see the overall results. <:)=
-- Sysman (email@example.com), February 16, 1999.
Wait a minute! Is this "Business Week," (a national publication) or a local Dayton Ohio newspaper?
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 1999.
Did anyone else see the different E-mail address??
Michael Taylor, email@example.com is posted with this question.
Michael Taylor, firstname.lastname@example.org is the address in the column at the link.
curiouser & curiouser
That particular paper is the local news for Dayton,OH. The home page of the site lists 39 cities available for the local type news.
There ain't no redwoods in Ohio either.
-- sweetolebob (email@example.com), February 16, 1999.
Not so curioser, really. Plenty of people have more than one e-mail address. The curious part is that the letter was published.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 1999.
>Not so curioser, really. Plenty of people have more than one e-mail address. The curious part is that the letter was published.<
I agree with that Sir, and it certainly is not at all strange to have a couple of E-mail addresses. I have three myself.
What I do find somewhat strange about all of this is that the post is NOT by either one of the addresses of this Michael Taylor, but is instead by (a (email@example.com)).
The post is a full and complete repeat of the article with the single exception being the changed address.
The changed address is enclosed within the posted question, NOT as the address of the poster.
I therefore thought that perhaps it was a little strange.
Of course I could be wrong.
-- sweetolebob (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 17, 1999.