Hamasaki: How bad, how long, who diesgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Subject: Re: Y2K? Everything's A-OK Date: 1999/05/13 Author: cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net> Posting History
On Thu, 13 May 1999 02:30:11, firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Heller) wrote:
> I don't think even a majority of companies will be ready in any industry. After 30 years
> in the data processing industry, I've seen how projects really work: mostly, they are very
> late or cancelled entirely. However, until the last moment, they are "on schedule". This
> makes the late start even worse.
We don't have a chance. The open questions are how bad, how long, who dies.
-bks- is right in one sense. There's no real reason for a
milne-infomagic die off, no reason in the sense that it is a physical law. It is possible to move the coal, food, goods, without computers.
Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world and people in one city will let food rot while 200 miles away, other people are starving.
Unfortunately there is human sloth, fear, denial, and indifference.
At this point, we know to a moral certainty that the remediation has failed. Tom B and others have analyzed the stats. We've all read the cleverly written spin where assurances, hearty fist shaking, and powerful words disguise and ignore the questions, Are you done? Can you prove it? Have the tests been audited?
What confuses the issue for some is that there are indeed firms that are done. Some of us know what it took, the long days, the hard work, and we don't see that level of effort expended in general. When one of the polly's says, "It's fixed, it was simple." We wonder what problem they were working on. Two PeeCees on a peer Lan with 200 lines of VB, perhaps.
Those of us who had to ask for more time, more hardware, additional staff, negotiate extensions on software licenses (and the money for the extensions) wonder who do the pollys think their kidding.
I have a link to a specialty company that solely handles software license negotiations. They verify that your mainframe software is properly licensed and get the best price possible on time extensions, DSLO, group licenses, Entry Systems, Time Machine licenses, etc. They make money when you save money.
I've yet to see an article from the big-brained polly side that exhibits any depth of understanding of the enterprise systems business.
But yet, they want us to buy into the "No problems" fantasy.
> Steve Heller, WA0CPP
cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html
For serious Y2K researchers, I have added a better transcript of Senator Bennett's talk at WDC Y2K.
For WRP regulars, I am working with two LED vendors. Stock up on alkaline D-cells.
-- a (email@example.com), May 13, 1999
"a", its great that you are posting these kinds of insightful "inside reports", so to speak. It definitely puts a harsh light on the usual happy-face "We are doing just great, no problems" type articles that one sees touted. The author, Steve Heller, is right: you almost never see any in-depth details, just breezy stuff, from the pollys.
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
Looking exclusively at Y2K, those big machines that Cory works with concern me. I have been around most types of computers since the early 80s (except super-computers), but mostly work with PeeCees these days. With a PeeCee, or other modern hardware/software combinations, it is possible (though hard) to validate a "system" (business application for 100 people, for example). But those old mainframe systems, supporting thousands of user, running programs in mostly forgotten languages still chugging along on IBM big-iron S/390 concern me.
As an illustration, when Windoze95 came out, portions of DOS/Windows3.1 had to be retained. According to Micro$oft's own technical journal (MSJ), even Micro$oft did not understand how portions of the "core" Windows 3.1 & DOS worked (written in assembly). Rather than risk causing "bugs" with 3rd-party apps written to work with old DOS & Windows 3.1, a large portion of the old code had to be left in place.
DOS dates back only to the early 80's (ignoring QDOS, which Microsoft purchased, and later became DOS). Windows is more recent still. The old mainframe programs 1) date back 20 years earlier and 2) are not found at a single location (!) in a single company.
Still, BJ Clinton and WW3 concern me the most. I'm I lot more concerned about war (nuclear, chemical, biological) and the New World Odor than living in the late 1800s for 10 years.
-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 14, 1999.
One - The start of this thread now holds my personal record for wild speculation. Nothing but speculation and guess. And of course, the usual from Cory about "they are lying. all of them. they all lie.". Not impressive.
Two - 99 (agent 99??) If I took your statment about Win95 to heart, I would never believe LINUX could possibly work. After all, isn't it being written by a bunch of totally unconnected people? Yet it works better than Win95 as far as stability goes. Fact is, Win95 is still just a GUI shell pasted onto a dos fundament. Lots of dos command line stuff in NT 4 for that matter - open a dos window and type NET and see what happens, assuming you have the Microsoft Networking client loaded.
-- Paul Davis (email@example.com), May 14, 1999.
Paul Davis, what's wrong with speculation?
-- Amused (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 15, 1999.