Dave Hall "Embedded Guru" now says: I no longer think that there will be major collapses caused by embedded systems impacts.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Dave Hall who a year ago was tlking about a % of 40 billion embedded chips failing, now says it isn't so. http://www.year2000.unt.edu/ topic 11
1.The amount of resources and the number of organizations actually working on embedded systems has increased almost exponentially.
2.We have found that there are fewer actual numbers of impacts than originally estimated, which is all to the good.
3.We have found that many of the embedded systems and equipment Year 2000 impacts are "cosmetic", that is, affecting only the date on a report or printout or display, rather than affecting actual control functions. 4.We have found that many of the Year 2000 impacts on embedded systems and equipment can be fixed with a software or firmware update rather than requiring hardware replacements. 5.The Electric Utility Industry has really been in the forefront of Year 2000 impact testing and remediation over the last nine months. If current trends continue, we should be able to avoid any major Yr2K-induced electric power disruptions. snip
However, all in all, this has been a good year for Infrastructure and Embedded Systems. At least we are doing something and getting some things accomplished. Im still concerned about what will happen in 2000 and 2001, but I no longer think that there will be major collapses caused by embedded systems impacts. Individual problems, some bordering on disasters, are possible. However, the more we work, the fewer there will be.
-- Cherri (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 1999
Individual problems, some bordering on disasters, are possible.
-- Dian (email@example.com), May 17, 1999.
Are you sure that's the right link? I couldn't get anything from it.
-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 1999.
The URL you gave is NG. Please provide a correction. Thanks
-- Bingo1 (email@example.com), May 17, 1999.
hehehe. A whole post full of actual test results, and one single offhand comment of cautious speculation. And guess which one Dian picked up on? Talk about selective reading! Just watch, in a month Dian will be quoting Dave Hall saying there will be "problems bordering on disasters" and ignoring the rest. The die is already cast.
Meanwhile, I guess we should shake our collective heads sadly, that yet another voice of preparation has been bought off. What is the world coming to?
-- Flint (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 1999.
Thank you for posting this. It is encouraging. It doesn't change my attitude towards preps but it does ease my mind a bit. We are really hoping that the stored food is always just an insurance policy and that Y2k brings only mild disruptions. Never again will I let myself be without stored supplies/food.
-- Kristi (securx@Succeed.Net), May 17, 1999.
How did you manage to get the URL to work?
-- Bingo1 (email@example.com), May 17, 1999.
Here's what Cherri didn't print from the same site - Dave Hall's forum:
NOW FOR THE "NOT-SO-GOOD" NEWS.
1. Much of the resources being placed on embedded systems is uncoordinated and wasted. Many organizations are doing the same things and not talking to each other to determine what has already been accomplished and how. Reinventing the wheel is something everybody must love to do, there is so much of it going on. 2. Even with fewer actual numbers of impacts, the impacts being found are in the control nexus areas. In other words, right where a failure or error would do the most harm. Even if the fix is simple, you must first find out that you need a fix and then ensure that it gets done correctly. Getting organizations motivated to inventory everything they have no matter where it is has been rough. Everyone is still looking for that silver bullet to come along and get them out of this mess. 3. Even the cosmetic impacts may need to be addressed if they affect critical human/machine interfaces. For example, a cosmetic display problem on a medical diagnostic item of equipment could cause a wrong diagnosis and treatment regimen. We still have to focus on individual items when we do an evaluation. 4. The vendor-supplied "fixes" are turning out to be inaccurate or incomplete in many cases. Compliance statements are changing faster than ever. No one should trust a vendor compliance statement or "fix" without first determining if the testing done to verify the fix matches the way THEY use the equipment or system. Many vendors do not test all functions of their software/equipment/system, so the fix only works for the EXACT configuration they say it does. And even at that the fix may interfere with some other application you have running on the equipment. 5. There is little interest in Asset Management. Once an item of equipment or system is "fixed" and is Year 2000 ready, how do you keep it that way? How do you ensure that someone does not upgrade, repair, maintain, put an older version of software on from "his" keepback disk, etc. your item or system out of readiness? Especially if you have 1000 or 3000 or 30,000 items to keep track of form the PCs to the fire alarms to the manufacturing controls to the phone switches.
HERE'S THE SITE: http://www.year2000.unt.edu/WCS/ You have to register. It's in the "Embedded System" section. It's a working group with lots of discussions by professionals.
-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), May 17, 1999.
Take a look at www.year2000.unt.edu, topic page 11 under the web conference.
You have to sign up to enter but it is free. Cherri
-- Cherri (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 1999.
No one should trust a vendor compliance statement or "fix" without first determining if the testing done to verify the fix matches the way THEY use the equipment or system. Many vendors do not test all functions of their software/equipment/system, so the fix only works for the EXACT configuration they say it does. And even at that the fix may interfere with some other application you have running on the equipment.
I am not a geek and did not know this aspect. It would seem to complicate things somewhat. Not much wiggle-room.
-- Mike Lang (email@example.com), May 17, 1999.
Hall has now dropped off the doom and gloom lists, De Jager left a long time ago, even Ed Y. has stated that he does not expect starvation due to food supply problems - just what is left of the expert evidence for TEOTW? Except a couple of guys who had to ASK if the Q7 transistor thing was a hoax.
-- Paul Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 18, 1999.
Very good news. Now, if our major trading partners are in the same boat then we might just weather this thing without a big blowout.
-- David Palm (email@example.com), May 18, 1999.
Okay, I went, I registered, I searched- but it hasn't turned up yet. Perhaps it would turn up real quick like, but I don't have time to do much searching. Anybody have the date or URL I can get to quickly?
Also, what are (if any) the ethics of reposting from a forum like that? Since they want people to register, is it okay to lift wholesale out of there? (Maybe it's just fine, but I'd like to know).
-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 18, 1999.
Paul: What planet are you on? The estimates in the Russ Kelly survey of experts are as follows:
8.2 7.4 10 6 7.1 8.5 7.5 7 9 7.2 7 6 8.9 7.25 3 10 8 2.75 4.5 6 5.8 9.2 8 1
This averages out to a 7. The scale is not specified, but using Dennis Elenburgs measures,
1 = annoying minor problems with little to no impact 3 = 1970's level recession, minor utility problems 6 = 1930's level depression, significant utility problems 10 = Gary North (serious global power outages, TEOTWAWKI)
a 7 sounds like we are in for exactly what the Senate report feared: "The worst crisis this country has ever faced."
-- a (email@example.com), May 19, 1999.
and only 120 working days to go... :(
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 19, 1999.