As fate would have it, two of the smartest computer guys I know were in while their techs performed a Microsoft-related Y2K patch. They run a small company specializing in PC network services. We helped them when they were just starting so we still get personal service.

I asked them about Y2K. Their concern was the flip-flopping by Microsoft and other vendors on Y2K compliance. Of course, they admitted they are making money, but they were concerned that the software vendors keep announcing compliance prematurely. Any comments from the forum?

Of course, I asked about the "big" Y2K picture. They were sanguine. They see businesses who are going to get pinched, but they are working on triage, contingency plans, cross-platform migration, etc. For them, business is good.

Regards,

[By the way, how do I insert the Darth Vader theme music so when someone opens the post, they hear ominous music? (laughter)]

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 06, 1999

Answers

Simple, sir, you use a verdamt java aplet, with the .wav of the music, and the rest of the forum asks it be removed. We have had a problem with these verdamt java programmers and their D?&N applets.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 06, 1999.

Thank you for the information. I too receive input from all manner of industry "specialists." They tend to mirror the imput that you describe on your post. When I speak with several past associates that I worked with on LSSD projects however, I get "mixed" and inconsistent responses. Similiar responses I imagine to those referred to as "flip-flopping" behavior from the software developers.

I shall be posting a rather lengthy article within the next week or so, dscribing my "journey" from woeful ignorance of Y2K to my present state of guarded optimism. Embodied in that post will be my personal experience/commentary while working on the "technical periphery" of large scale software development projects. It will, I hope, provide a personal perspective on why I have chosen to institute what I term "modest preparations" for myself and my family.

I always enjoy your thoughtful posts and urge that you continue to engage........

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), May 06, 1999.

I see "gentleman" that you intend to stick around to monitor us all for your oily reports back to your controllers.

You have been OUTED big time pal and we aren't EVER going to forget.

The only useful info. I've got from you was on the WAVE - but I already had one.

Hey, I have a usefull gadget you might like to buy - it's called a CONSCIENCE.

And unfortunately for certain oily agent provocateur gubbmint shills like you and CET is UNAVAILABLE AT ANY PRICE!!!

Wankers.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

I really think Andy is starting to like me. (laughter)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 06, 1999.

Andy, I think you've been reading between the lines too much. You should stop drinking caffine.

Mr. Decker, just respond to Andy's posts with "two beers, one arrest, the smallest jail cell"

The headline from the Tulsa World: "Presidential address this afternoon tremendous output of gas expected"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 06, 1999.

My father has been in IT since the early '60's. Other than buying a generator for sporadic grid failure, he isn't preparing.

-- Helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), May 06, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

>flip-flopping by Microsoft and other vendors on Y2K compliance. < snip > they were concerned that the software vendors keep announcing compliance prematurely. Any comments from the forum?

This illustrates that Y2k compliance is not nearly as simple as many might suppose, which is why the almost universal experience of major corporations is that their original time/cost estimates for Y2k remediation were way, way too low. Those who've not yet started are in for unpleasant surprises.

>I asked about the "big" Y2K picture. They were sanguine. They see businesses who are going to get pinched, but they are working on triage, contingency plans, cross-platform migration, etc. For them, business is good.

Have they yet drawn the conclusion from the flip-flopping vendor examples that a lot of businesses are going to get more than just "pinched"? Do they have any basis for thinking that the businesses they see are going to do no worse than those software vendors?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 06, 1999.

Infoliant tracks compliance for more than 33,000 products (yes, they do sell their database). Their April summary says that 216 products were downgraded. <:)=

216 Products Take Wrong Turn on Road to Y2K Complianc

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 06, 1999.

The two owners are planning to hire extra staff to do more work now and mop up problems after Y2K. They see Y2K problems as a profit opportunity. Through good financial planning, they are well capitalized and invested defensively. (They had some help on the defensive investing....)

When I spoke to them, they were more frustrated than worried. If there's power, we will have computers. If we have computers, they'll be in business.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 06, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Some perspective for your consideration:

Some time ago, my granddaughter asked, "Grandpa, will you take me to see a computer?"

"Sure", I replied. "Maybe we can do that tomorrow."

"I want to see a REAL computer Grandpa, not one of those TOYS that sit on a desk! One of those that you used to take Mama with you to fix--the kind that you need an 18 wheeler to move!"

"OK."

"Troll Maria" (also to be known as "The Dog Lady"),

You continue to astonish me with your repeated revelations of the foulness that festers within you.

You have displayed a bitterness and hostility since your very first appearance here and perhaps even revealed a modicum of self loathing ("Oh, I don't mind, just call me Troll Maria") that is simply not accounted for by anything that has transpired on this forum and surely must have nothing to do with Y2K or even the "Polly" v. "Doomer" nonsense.

Your unabated insistence on the vile nature of Pit Bull Terriers, in spite of honest and accurate advice to the contrary, bespeaks a closed mind that contains false information. (Anyone remember the dog in the Our Gang comedies that had a ring around its eye? Yep! That was a Pit Bull. Sure tore those kids up, didn't he?)

Now it seems that you have taken to disparaging the Chihuahua for lack of intelligence! I assure you of my own first hand knowledge that nothing could be further from the truth (They're quick too--"Oh oh! I theenk I need a beeger box!")

You have displayed an abysmal ignorance of dogs in general and of these two breeds in particular and one cannot avoid the conclusion that you have been gullible enough accept the vulgar and inaccurate images that are commonly used to portray these animals.

You are arrogant and strident and I would classify you as a bitch if it weren't so painfully obvious that you don't know enough about dogs to be one! Marines generally believe in arrogance ("Lean back, dig 'em in and STRUT") but that habit must be supported by humility or it will ruin you. Not once have I seen you admit error in this forum (but I guess that's OK since you're perfect, right?).

Your purported "Masters in Space Operations" might impress a ufologist or a "Grey", but it seems of limited value in a system that contains satellites that "have always been Y2K compliant" or as a "Y2K Project Manager" for the phone company. As for your skills in logical thought, they seem to extend not at all beyond the lesson plans for some obscure course in "Mathematical Logic" that you claim to have taught somewhere.

Your "contributions" here consist (as far as I know, but PLEASE, correct me if I'm wrong) of an interminable series of insistences that YOUR company is finished, Y2K will not cause major problems, everyone who disagrees with your statements is a "moron", or an "idiot" or any of a number of other irrelevant and false insults which seem to be inserted simply to draw attention away from the fact that you have said nothing of substance.

You have also exhibited dishonesty at worst, or extreme lack of self control at best, to this forum. I remember quite well your snotty response to my definition of civility and your extreme lack of grace in nearly demanding that "amiability" be included in that definition simply because you found the word in your thesaurus. (Sometime when you're not too steamed up, do yourself a favor and educate yourself as to just what a thesaurus actually contains.) Your own subsequent lack of "amiability" and your substitution of "animosity" (which you passed off with some BS remark like, "I just slipped up") convinced me that you are either basically dishonest or lack even rudimentary self control. Other readers of this forum will of course, form their own opinions.

Your latest uncharitable (to be kind) affront to Andy is simply further indication of the truly nasty brew bubbling away within you. I hope that your son (who I also hope you haven't screwed up too badly by now) experiences the same thing that Andy did. I am sure that it would change your perspective.

I have known women who act as you do Troll Maria. They were all as hurt as you seem to be. If I were to guess, I'd guess that a man hurt you very badly, probably a man who drank and maybe beat you. (and, maybe I'm completely wrong) Whatever. Get over it. That ugliness that you carry around and sometimes spew forth into cyberspace is far more corrosive to you than it could ever be to anyone here.

You can't hurt any of us. All you can do is make yourself look foolish and ugly and each time you look into a mirror, that's what you'll see.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 06, 1999.

And, welcome back, Hardliner. You, Sir, have been missed.

-- RUOK (ruok@yesiam.com), May 07, 1999.