If It's Not Fixed In Timegreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
My car has a problem. It's a serious problem. The brakes need to be fixed.If these brakes are not fixed, the car could fail to stop at a busy intersection, killing innocent people. I myself could die.
When you consider that there are millions of cars on the road, and that a substantial percentage have the same flaw, you see the magnitude of the problem.
The local brake shop is very busy. They're overloaded. I don't know if they can take my car today. We'll have to see.
Further, after they fix the brakes, all they do is a simple static test. They don't actually drive the car, put it through its paces, and check the brakes under all possible driving conditions. The brakes could still fail.
Even worse, they make you sign a paper agreeing that they're not liable if I have an accident because they didn't fix the brakes properly.
You have been warned: if you see a gray Pontiac Bonneville headed your way in the Birmingham area, pull off the road until it passes.
In the new edition of The State of Y2K:
The Prophet Speaks!
Cory's Challenge!
Life's A Beach ... Unless You're A Secondary Clock
Jesse Ventura Calls Out The Troops
What Does "Compliant" Mean Today?See The Web Page
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 23, 1999
Don't you pollys ever get tired of coming on here and butting heads. This forum is for y2k preparedness, and you all seem to want to come on ghere and change people's minds. Just go away, please.
-- Tired of Pollys (enough@already.geez), April 23, 1999.
Notice to non-techies. Don't be misled by this absurd analogy which only illustrates that Poole ISN'T as smart as I sincerely thought him to be.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 23, 1999.
Prepare for what Tired? Wouldn't you like to know what you should prepare for?
-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 23, 1999.
Doomboy, what a stupid, assinine, moronic statement. If you have a shred of intellingence you can see for yourself what the people on this forum are preparing for. What I'm getting fed up with is pollyannas like you and the idiot who started this thread, who feel that that you have a duty to presuade people not to prepare for disasters and eventualities, like YOU know better. Like I said, just go away.
-- Tired of Pollys (enough@already.jeez), April 23, 1999.
Hey, I don't like being called Doomboy! Makes it sound like I believe in Doomsday!Listen, Tired, there are alot of gullible people out there. Some are reading this, and some are listening to people who read this. I'm tired of all you doomers stirring up trouble with your rumors and misinformation. So, I guess that makes us even.
Quit your whining. We all have the same 1st Amendment rights.
-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 23, 1999.
>This forum is for y2k preparedness.
The forum is for people who want to discuss Ed Yourdon's book, TimeBomb 2000 ... and specifically, the points and contentions raised therein. I am doing that.
If you don't like it, come over to one of "our" forums (which is also silly -- as if there's an "us against them" thing going on here), such as The Debunking Y2K Webboard.
Fair is fair; you may come there and post anything you like, scream, call us names, etc., et. al, ad nauseum.
I guess we're more courteous than you folks. We very rarely tell anyone to "just go away." :)
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 23, 1999.
Doomslayer,If you want to use yout First Ammendment rights to do more than disrupt discussion, then tell us how you think Y2K will turn out on a 1-to-10 scale and how much or little we need to prepare for that.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.
Here is what Stephen says we need to prepare for:"[Y2K] has gained fame and notoriety SOLEY [sic] because it coincides with the Spooky and Mystical Dawn of the New Millennium" - Stephen M. Poole, CET
However, keep in mind that Poole says he is a Certified Electronics Technician; a few steps below a PhD, but a HS graduate nonetheless.
-- a (a@a.a), April 23, 1999.
a@a.a,Yes, I am a CET. I don't even have a college degree. Is that not the terrible thing? That I should know more about this than some PhDs who are pontificating on the subject . .. ..... :)
I even know how to make a hotlink appear here:
You will also note that I provide my email address, open to flames and attaboys both. You, on the other hand, don't have the nerve to do that.
(In other words: I acknowledge what I write openly, by name. I don't hide behind a handle and a bogus email address.)
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 23, 1999.
a,Here's another quote from our resident CET:
"(Yeah. Right. All three (3) computers in Afghanistan and Zaire might fail. Yep, that could kill us. Great point.)"
BigDog,
I agree 100% "Poole ISN'T as smart as I sincerely thought him to be."
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 23, 1999.
A little simplistic - but I'll play the game:Brakes (your "regular car) wear gradually, emitting squeals after the wear sensors are exposed. But, for the most part, they can still stop the car during the "wear-out" interval. If if the shoes and pads are terribly grooved, they can still stop the car.
There are only a few fundemental designs of barkes and even fewer models of cars, and car shops know what to expect, have trained (experienced) mechanics who can expect to know what a "brake job" consists of, what to do when the car arrives, how long it will take, and have access to the right parts very readily.
The drivers, in general, know what a car is, how to stop it, and are not worried about stopping. Or going, or replacing brakes.
Now, let's look at your Y2Kar's brakes.
There are many millions of them, and many will absolutely and immediately fail next January-Feb-Mar while in service, ost with no warning. No squeals, no grinding noises, no wear strips. (Other than what a GI hears now....and a DWGI ignores.)
Some brakes will not fail at all, but will only need routine maintentance. These repairs will take up space in the same repair shop as the other failures.
Some of the failures are minor and cosmetic only - as if you get a burning, rotten egg odor from the wheels, but if you're willing to let your clients ride with you in the midst of a gassy attack, you don't need a repair.
Some of the failures may be: the wheel won't turn. Don't care whehter the car has gas or not - the wheel will not turn. You will need to call a wrecker to pickup the car, pull it to the garage, and then off-load it.
Some of the failures will be: the lug nuts shear off while at high speed, some will shear off only when stopped or started (as long as you keep driving and never shutdown, you'll be okay), some of the lug nuts will simply loosen and fall off, and some of the failures will be the lug nuts refuse to loosen at all. You cannot know ahead of time which failure mode you may have. Your mechanic doesn't know how hard it will be to take the lug nuts off either. Or how hard it will be to reinstall the wheel afterwards. He may have to repalce the entire wheel, as well as the brakes pads.
Every brake pad is unique, and the mechanic must custom cut and machine every brake pad. This may take a few hours, it may take a couple of days. The mechanic doesn't know until he gets the wheel off.
Until he puts the wheel back together in the free static test, he doesn't know if the new pad he machines will fit, was made of the right material, or is mounted correctly. Many machined pads have to be remachined several times to get them to fit in the slot.
Every Y2Kar has a different number of wheels, and they use a mixture of welded fittings, english nuts, and metric nuts. Every now and then, the car is built entirely from undimensioned parts, that don't have a standard size. No wrench can fit every nut, and many nuts are left-handed threads - so you have to unscrew them backwards.
After replacing and re-assembling the wheels, you (the owner) are told you need to pay extra to test the Y2Kar. A test drive - whether across the parking lot, or around the town, costs extra. Or you can just get the car as-is, but then the brakes might fail anyway.
Every car on the road might be a Y2Kar with fixed brakes, a Y2Kar with bad brakes, or a regular car; but you can't tell.
There are Y2Trucks out there too, but the government says they're all going to be okay, but aren't going to inspect the Y2Trucks, nor are they going to ask anybody else to check the Y2Trucks. The Y2Trucking industry is going to report to the government when they ar eall through. But the government says tht if the Y2trucks are foreign registered, and then the Y2trucks could fail too.
You can't tell the difference between Y2Trucks owned locally carrying local lettuce and tomatoes, and foreign-owned Y2Trucks carrying dynamite and gasoline. They all look alike to you (and the government.)
Now, still want to race cars on Jan 01, 2000 on the expressway, or do you want to slow down and be able to check things out first.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 23, 1999.
Who's scale Kevin? On most scales I've seen, I'd say more than 1 but less than 5.Preparations? Emergency preparedness is always a good idea. What that means to you depends on your situation. Red Cross/FEMA guidelines are a good place to *start*.
Ed Yourdon thinks we're in for a long depression, Ed Yardeni says maybe a recession. I don't think either of those calls for a year's worth of food and water.
-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 23, 1999.
Doomslayer,What's wrong with having a years supply? Isn't it better to be over-prepared than under? <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 23, 1999.
It all depends Sysman. If you're maxing out your credit to get a year's worth of "stuff" then no I don't think it's better to be overprepared.
-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 23, 1999.
If it's not fixed in time...http://www.joc.com/issues/990308/p1age1/e20324.htm
[snip]
Experts warn of Y2K trade upheaval
Each nation's problem will become a global one
BY WILLIAM ROBERTS
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE STAFF
WASHINGTON -- Experts on the millennium computer bug warned Congress last week that international commerce and trade may face serious disruptions early next year because of computer failures in foreign countries.
Painting an alarming but uncertain picture, a National Intelligence Council officer and a State Department watchdog told a special Senate oversight panel on Friday that many foreign nations are not prepared.
"It is becoming increasingly clear that there will be Y2K-related problems in virtually very corner of the globe," Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, inspector general of the Department of State, told a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem.
"Faced with a relentless and unforgiving deadline, countries have to make difficult decisions concerning the use of scarce resources to fix a problem that has not yet occurred," she said.
[snip]
The international transportation sector is particularly vulnerable, she and Lawrence K. Gershwin, National Intelligence Council officer for science and technology, said. "Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, trade and worldwide shipping and air transportation will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries," Mr. Gershwin said.
Among the difficulties the two officials outlined:
Both the Panama and Suez canals face the risk of disrupted operations should traffic management systems or ship steering mechanisms fail. Panama officials say no ships will be allowed into the canal on Dec. 31. A Norwegian firm is working now on fixing the Suez Canal's traffic system.
China probably will experience failures in several areas, including transportation and power generation. An estimated 90% of software used in China, even by government offices and state-owned enterprises, is pirated, making it very difficult to approach vendors for fixes. China is planning to conduct a nationwide aviation test. Senior officials have been ordered to fly on New Year's Day.
Central and Eastern Europe are believed to face vulnerabilities in Soviet-designed nuclear power plants, though Western experts do not know what specific problems they may have. Many vendors of the software and equipment stopped operating after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Russia Gazprom natural gas pipeline network is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50% of the total energy consumed by Russia. While Gazprom has backup plans, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur.
Major oil-producing nations are behind in fixing their Y2K problems. Oil production and distribution is largely in the hands of multinational corporations, but the sector's use of information technology is highly intensive
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.
Oh well, while you're at it Kevin, dated 4/21/99... <:)=SINGAPORE (AP) - Time for talking about the Y2K problem has run out in the Asia-Pacific region and leaders must begin seeking solutions, the top U.S. millennium bug troubleshooter said Thursday.
The warning by John Koskinen, head of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, came a day after the Clinton administration predicted the greatest threat to America from the Year 2000 glitch could come from computer failures overseas.
In its latest report on preparing for the Y2K problem, the White House has said failures are all but certain in some foreign countries because of their late efforts to fix systems.
``We're at the stage when we need to go beyond awareness and focus on action,'' Koskinen told experts in Singapore via video link from Washington.
Koskinen was addressing 150 experts from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum who gathered for a two-day conference on the millennium bug. The glitch, an offshoot of old programming that doesn't distinguish between the years 1900 and 2000, could cause catastrophic computer shutdowns on Jan. 1.
Several experts have said the forum's aim is not to judge the region's readiness for combating the problem. Instead, they said, they will identify areas that might break down and spread to other economies in the region.
But Koskinen called for a more solution-oriented approach, noting there are ``only 254 days to go'' until the end of the year.
``Thinking about this conference, it's clear we must be moving on from discussing the nature of the problem and simply sharing the information,'' Koskinen said.
Rather, he said, major problems in the region should be identified and solutions to them suggested.
``We need to focus in depth on specific problems,'' such as transportation, energy, telecommunications and financial services, he said.
In another speech at the Singapore gathering, Takeo Shiina, a Y2K expert from Japan, said it is ``very important'' for governments and businesses as well as individuals to make contingency plans for Jan. 1.
``Every family should have its own contingency plans,'' to avoid panicking and social unrest, Shiina said.
APEC includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam and the United States.
As one of the first countries to enter the year 2000, experts in New Zealand are worried they will be jammed with inquiries from around the world on how things went Jan. 1.
``We think a mechanism should be set up so that institutions and individuals from all over the world don't call us all at once,'' John Good, an adviser to New Zealand's Y2K Readiness Commission, told The Associated Press on Thursday.
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 23, 1999.
Robert - The Y2Trucking industry has announced with "cautious optimism" that it will be completely ready by the end of September. What it hasn't figured out is that that vapordate is based on backordered hardware (since all Y2Trucking companies have been procrastinating) and not-yet-available software upgrades, the real arrival time of which could be critically delayed, and preclude any testing before rollover.
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), April 23, 1999.
Big Dog knows all. He determines who is intelligent and who is not. Whenever he makes a point, 3 other cronies come out to high-five him. All he seems to do is comment on how good others' posts are, as if he is some kind of authority.When he's not doing that, he has his head between his legs, licking his balls and sniffing other dogs' turds.
Just listen to Big Fraud. He has all the answers.
-- larryb (conspiracy@everywhere.com), April 23, 1999.
The average person, with minimal training can inspect and test brakes, even replace them. (That's one of the few things one can do oneself anymore on today's "wonderful" cars.) OTOH, doing the same with computers and software is at least an order of magnitude more complicated. (i.e., at least 10x.)
-- vbProg (vbProg@MicrosoftAndIntelSuck.com), April 23, 1999.
Brooks wrote:"What it hasn't figured out is that that vapordate is based on backordered hardware (since all Y2Trucking companies have been procrastinating) and not-yet-available software upgrades, the real arrival time of which could be critically delayed, and preclude any testing before rollover"
Please enlighten us with some sources for your claims? Anectodal? Do you work in the industry? Do you have access to manufacturers order books? Articles in the trade press?
Just wondering.
-Keep your stick on the ice-
-- Johnny Canuck (nospam@eh.com), April 23, 1999.
Robert,Every brake pad is unique, and the mechanic must custom cut and machine every brake pad. This may take a few hours, it may take a couple of days. The mechanic doesn't know until he gets the wheel off.
Wrong. You're reflecting the standard Doomer bromide, meant to impress the clueless with false magnitude: "Millions in service! No way to know which ones are at risk!"
Yes, there are millions of industrial controllers in service, but only a relative few different types (ie, models). Provided you know that a particular model isn't Y2K-sensitive, there's no reason to be alarmed.
(Unless you've bought into Beach's "secondary clock" nonsense?[g])
In fact, the most commonly used are dumb process controllers from companies like Square D -- the vast majority of which don't even know what a "date" is.
The average lurker here might be interested to know what's actually going on behind the scenes here.
Y2K consultants began contacting industries a few years ago: "you need to let us check yer machines. We'll only charge $100 an hour to do it ..."
The equipment vendors said, "hey, we need to get in on that." So, THEY started handling the Y2K stuff themselves -- and at significantly lower rates (in many cases, for free, to maintain good relations).
The Consultants went positively ape over this. They started insisting that the vendors didn't know what they were doing. They bolstered their arguments with a few exceptional examples, and the clueless Doomers took up the refrain for them: "can't trust the vendors! Gotta hire the Y2K experts to verify, or we're still gonna panic!"
So, a lot of companies have spent a lot of good money needless, solely to try to assuage the fears of the clueless.
That's just free enterprise at work, I s'pose.
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 23, 1999.
I am reminded of several things here.First, the old saying that "no analogy is perfect". Stephen's basic point is absolutely clear, no matter how much it may be picked apart by analyses such that offered by Engineer Cooke, who seems to "lose sight of the forest for the trees". Things will be worse in some countries than in the U.S., granted; but that can't and doesn't negate the progress made here and in many other countries.
I share Doomslayer's concern about people who read Doomer stuff on this and other forums, who may be persuaded to take courses of action that are unnecessary and extreme (in the views of those of us who see other options besides Doom).
If those of you who think you see Doom clouds on the horizon want to bug out to the hills and prepare out the ying-yang for what you perceive to be coming, by all means have at it. That's your business.
But when you try to persuade my mother, sister, aunt, uncle, and best buddy that they need to do the same thing, then it becomes my business.
I guess the oldest saying I'll quote is this: "science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20). That's what I'm getting tired of reading, as it's offered in defense of the rapidly-crumbling Doomer position.
Oh...by the way -- Stephen: "ATTABOY!"
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 23, 1999.
Typical polly b.s. on this thread by "Chicken Little" and "Poole".
-- Disgusted (disgusted@fedup.com), April 23, 1999.
Yea, ATTABOY Stephen:"[Y2K] has gained fame and notoriety SOLEY [sic] because it coincides with the Spooky and Mystical Dawn of the New Millennium"
"(Yeah. Right. All three (3) computers in Afghanistan and Zaire might fail. Yep, that could kill us. Great point.)"
Keep 'em comin' genius.
-- You (guys@re.stupid), April 23, 1999.
The forest, dear sir, is made of trees - some sick, some "deceased", some healthy.No - I'm not looking at embedded anythings - those are one little piece of the puzzle. I'm pointing out you erred several ways - other than trivializing the problem, the extent of which we disagree, but that's okay.
One - it - like you pointed out - can be solved. It can only be solved slowly and manually, which is what I pointed out.
Two - siomple, rapid automated methods don't work.
Three - Each program is unique. The solution is apparently simple, and very difficult in executing correctly in the many places that need correcting.
Four - Or do you maintain that we don't need to fix it? I agreed - if you're willing to put up smoke and fumes as you drive your clients around - with reports and projects that are wrong, misleading, or loaded with stupid and embaressing dates.
Five - Some of the failures (programming and process) are going to be fatal. How do you propose finding out which is which?
Six - Some of the failures are hidden, and being hidden by the government, and some of those are fatal - not all, just enough to hurt.
Seven - Persuade your own family then not to prepare (and accept the consequences for your decision), but leave the teaching (on this site, to those who come here to try to learn about preparing) to those willing to teach.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 23, 1999.
Stephen "Mystical Dawn" Poole, CET: in your silly analogy, you forgot to mention that, unlike the world's interconnected computer systems, vehicles have a seperate emergency brake, just for such a purpose.
-- a (a@a.a), April 23, 1999.
Oh and Stevey, just to clue you in, if you go and look in your trunk, there's a spare tire too.
-- Mr. Goodwrench (LOL@ignorant.pollyannas), April 23, 1999.
If it's not fixed in time...See what this government official has to say:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/gershwin_testimony_0305 99.html
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.
Disgusted: at least we agree on one thing. I am too.Seqor Cook: "there you go again".
"Each program is unique." Yep. I guess that's why many thousands or millions of 'puter people in many thousands of different locations are working on the problem, all around the globe. However, many programs are indeed clones, so really each program is not really unique, as you say. (PC's? Companies that use PC-based LAN's or WAN's with Windows NT or BackOffice, or Novell? Come on.) But there are myriad different programs, true. The gist of what you say has validity. But my response is, so what? Tell us something we don't already know, and that hasn't already been acknowledged, absorbed, and isn't presently being worked on by the global IT community. Some have a better grip that others, true. But TEOTWAWKI will not occur in most countries; in those that are really far behind, Y2k disruptions by and large won't cause events that are so hugely different from everyday life in those places to begin with. Rwanda, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Russia etc. aren't real stable places even now, are they? But the rest of the world manages to get along in spite of their unruly neighbors in the global community. And the world will continue to do so.
"Persuade your own family then not to prepare." Another tired regurgitation of the Doomer view that if someone doesn't prepare for TEOTWAWKI, then they just aren't preparing at all. Wake up. We're preparing, just not at the insane level you folks recommend.
"Leave the teaching (on this site, to those who come here to try to learn about preparing) to those willing to teach." Well golly I didn't realize that Doomers owned a monopoly on any internet website, including this one. If this is a legal fact, please clue me in. As I've said previously, this site is by its very nature a public forum, much as a newspaper editorial page is. Yep I certainly realize that people come here to learn about preparing. But when there are divergent views concerning what prudent preparation is, then those coming here to learn have the right to see what those divergent views are. Your statement tends towards ideological totalitarianism. As in, "only our [doomer] views should be presented here." Cowpoop. Not in a democratic republic. Slobodan Milosevic might espouse/enforce such a view, but this is the U.S. of A. Kennesaw, GA is within these borders, is it not? It is? Then act like it.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 23, 1999.
Chicken Little,Can you say Mainframe? We're talking many generations of programmers here, going back 35 years. Many systems developed in the mid-60s on the System/360 are still alive and well on the latest System/390. Because of things like the PC, NT, Novell, etc. most of today's programmers are not familiar with the mainframe. Sure, some of the old applications have moved to new technology, but there is still a huge installed base out there. The old programmers have moved on, companies have downsized, but the old code remains. I don't know if you have ever worked on mainframe programs, but most are a big pile of spaghetti code, that have been maintained over the years by many programmers, each with their own style, missing documentation, and very hard to work on, regardless of the language. Believe me, I know, I see it every day. Yes, the problem is easy to fix, but it ain't easy to fix. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 23, 1999.
Johnny Canuck:Brooks wrote:
"What it hasn't figured out is that that vapordate is based on backordered hardware (since all Y2Trucking companies have been procrastinating) and not-yet-available software upgrades, the real arrival time of which could be critically delayed, and preclude any testing before rollover"
You replied: Please enlighten us with some sources for your claims? Anectodal? Do you work in the industry? Do you have access to manufacturers order books? Articles in the trade press?
Here's what NERC has to say:
"We came up with the idea of the Y2K exceptions report. 'I will be Y2K ready except for XYZ piece of equipment that will not be available because the vendor won't be able to supply the hardware for it until August 17,'" Gorzelnik [Gene Gorzelnik of NERC public affairs] gave as an example..
-- Clare (clare307@aol.com), April 23, 1999.
a: Doomist Baffoon! your brains (or lack thereof) are showing!What the hell do you think an e-brake system is, moron? it is nothing more than a mechanical connection to your rear shoes/discs! If they are shot, the "e-brake don't werk", duh!
Poole: ATTABOY here as well!
-- nanny goat (doomers@re.losers), April 23, 1999.
nanny: as Robert already pointed out, your brakes will still work if your shoes are worn. I assume Stephen "Mystic Dawn" Poole, CET meant his brakes were not working, which implies a hydraulic problem. And that is what the emergency brake is for, you asinine fool.
-- a (a@a.a), April 23, 1999.
Kevin,With all due respect, no, I'm not the least bit interested in what government agencies have to say about the problem. I go straight to the engineers and techs who keep the equipment running. The politicos are jumping onto the bandwagon (rather belatedly) for PR purposes.
But I do find another irony here: many of the same people who formerly wouldn't believe anything uttered by Washington now hang on its every word about Y2K. Has Washington -- which, for decades, couldn't even run a post office efficiently -- suddenly gotten a clue? This is news to me.
I'm not saying YOU specifically are guilty of this, mind you, but it is an amusing phenomenon.
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 23, 1999.
Sysman:Because of things like the PC, NT, Novell, etc. most of today's programmers are not familiar with the mainframe. Sure, some of the old applications have moved to new technology, but there is still a huge installed base out there.
I would argue with the word "huge" -- the vast majority of business systems are PCs, as I've pointed out elsewhere (at the Siemens facility where I did some contract work a couple of years ago, for example, they were Novell and Windows 3.1/95). ALL of their software was written for Win16. (Using VC++ 1.5; *gack*.)
I see your point. However, I would also argue that some of this is the IT/IS mentality. My partner and I submitted a bid and proposal to a very large insurance company a couple of years ago; a complete overhaul and rewrite of their system that would have included all sorts of cutting-edge goodies -- satellite communications with laptop computers used by adjusters in the field, for example (that's where I came in especially [g]).
(We would naturally have fixed any and all Y2K bugs as part of the deal, which is why I mention it.)
We were very close to getting the deal, but the company's IT department went bonkers and engaged in an hysterical campaign to kill it -- and eventually succeeded.
Why; was it bad idea? No, they resented outsiders who didn't have the "IT mindset," and especially outsiders who recommended PC-based off-the-shelf technology instead of their beloved Big Iron stuff.
Half the gloom and doom stuff that I've read about Y2K proceeds from that same mentality. "The old car is broke and we can't get parts and can't fix it in time!"
"Uhhh ... why not buy a new car?"
"(expletives deleted)"
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 23, 1999.
Stephen,I don't know why I'm still wasting my time with you. With the statements that you have made, noted above, I still think you are form the class of 1999.
Please name 10 of the Fortune 500 companies that do not run multiple mainframes.
Please tell me why sales of IBM mainframes are up every year.
Please don't tell me about the perfect world. The fact of the matter is that the installed base is HUGE!
Please don't tell me about PC's. I still have a working classic IBM PC.
Please don't tell me about Novell. I had Netware running on a 286.
Please open your eyes.
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 23, 1999.
Golly Gee Whillikers Sysman,No wonder you can't make any coherent sense.
You're spread too thin, by your own testimony.
Trying to be jack of all trades; ending up master of none.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 24, 1999.
But I do find another irony here: many of the same people who formerly wouldn't believe anything uttered by Washington now hang on its every word about Y2K. Has Washington -- which, for decades, couldn't even run a post office efficiently -- suddenly gotten a clue? This is news to me.Stephen,
There's been no change in opinion, and there is no inconsistency. I have more confidence in what that testimony said...than in what John Koskinen would have to say at a public press conference. It really does make a difference whether what a government official says about Y2K is likely to be heard by the general public, or whether it's likely to be read mostly by other government officials.
Having confidence in government information is not a black-and-white, either-or matter. Consider the context. I'd like to think that the agency that provided that testimony does have a clue.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 24, 1999.
The link again to that testimony:http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/gershwin_testimony_0305 99.html
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 24, 1999.
Chicken Little,Maybe you have a point. Computers have been my hobby for about 33 years now. I've been getting paid for my hobby for 31 years. I spend at least 8 hours a day, at least 5 days a week at my job. When I get home, I start on my hobby. I have spent the majority of my life playing with computers. I guess you could say that I have some experience. What is your experience, since reading your last remark, I now consider you to also be a member of the class of 1999? Put up, or shut up. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 24, 1999.
Sysman,-I don't know why I'm still wasting my time with you.
Because you love me. :)
-Please name 10 of the Fortune 500 companies that do not run multiple mainframes.
I've told you before, these guys are typically running an amalgamated mix of PCs and mainframe stuff.
-Please tell me why sales of IBM mainframes are up every year.
Same reason PC sales are up every year and continue to eclipse mainframe sales. Population growth. Expansion into other countries. The best economy in decades means businesses are buying new stuff, etc. (Duh.)
-Please don't tell me about the perfect world. The fact of the matter is that the installed base is HUGE!
Define "huge." But OK, I'll grant that there are still plenty of them out there. But maybe it's time to question the old methodology.
-Please don't tell me about PC's. I still have a working classic IBM PC.
I've got you beat; I still have a working Timex-Sinclair 1000. Even got the awesome 16K memory expansion gloober. :)
-Please don't tell me about Novell. I had Netware running on a 286.
And when I was at Heilig Meyers, we had a Corvus 30meg network drive running Zenith Z100's ... back when 30 megs was considered a Whopper. :)
Why you take this personally, and continue to engage in chest-hair contests and ad hominem attacks, is puzzling.
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 24, 1999.
Stephen,I don't take this personally. I do think that some of your remarks, such as Spooky and Mystical Dawn, and three computers in Afghanistan above don't do much to add to your credibility. Fine, I'll accept your experience, and stop the class of 99 wise crack. Anybody with a working Sinclair can't be all that bad :)
"maybe it's time to question the old methodology"
This is the only point I'll respond to here, since I see that Cory has started a new thread on our debate. There are quite a few reasons why even today's multi-cpu PCs can't replace a mainframe. That's not the point. The mainframe issue is a big part of this problem. In a perfect world, we could make them all go away. In a perfect world, everyone would fix the Y2K problem. We don't live in a perfect world, and the clock continues to tick. Questioning the old methodology is not even an option at this late date.
I'm going to find some lunch. I'll see ya later in the new thread. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 24, 1999.
too many brake metaphors....these poly's must not be too secure,people make adult decisions based on their assesments of the info available they believe in what they are doing and it's their resources that they are investing.people aren't abused for buying car insurance,do they get car insurance because they think they WILL get in an accident?no,they buy it because they MIGHT get in an accident.same with us y2k nuts,we don't know what will happen,we prepair so we don't have to fear the unknown,we know we'll eat.and we know what people like DOOMSLAYER and y2kpro will be called if there are problems..."asshole-beggar-mooch"
-- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 24, 1999.
Is that so, Boobie? How about this: some shyster insurance salesman talks your granny into blowing her Social Secruity check on car insurance, and she dont even have a car. You like THAT analogy? You just never know though, she just might have a car accident someday.
-- Not Doomslayer and Not Y2KPro (meme-buster@bfi.bfi), April 24, 1999.