Optimists (Dan, CL, anyone else): I posted this last night. Thoughts? (Including from anyone else, of course) ------------ Australian Electric Power Report May Validate Positive US Findings On Embedded Systems

http://www.afr.com.au/y2k/990517/comp/comp1.html

(Australian Financial Review)

The last two paragraphs in this story caught my eye:

**In the individual State systems, identified problems with microprocessors susceptible to millennium bug failure have tended to be more in monitoring and reporting software (specifically, the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition or SCADA systems) than in actual switching equipment.

**In other words, the lights would still have been on as the New Year fireworks arced into the sky, but some of the monitoring and equipment systems might fail safe or show incorrect dates.

This is essentially, I would say, what many people in the US power industry have also been stating. And that would be good news on the power front.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 1999

Answers

Drew,

According to Bruce Beach, Phd., Many embedded systems have not date function and they frequently get left out of the analsys or testing for Y2K. However, some of these no-date using embedded systems have embedded chips that do have clocks (with dates) that affect their functioning. Even though the system may not have a date function, it may fail due to some of its chips having clocks that are not compliant.

Due to lack of time and money, many EUs are not testing systems that have no date function. The Y2K project leader for Texas Utilites stated that they did not test non-date specific systems in a Y2K briefing at Scofiled Memorial church in Dallas in March.

Here is the real rick of embedded systems. You think you have found and fixed them all but you overlook some problems because they seemed to be free of date issues. If their not tested, how do you know if they will (or won't) fail? Simple answer, you don't.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 1999

Rick,

Ref - Bruce Beach

I don't think you will find many Embedded System experts who give much credence to Beach's "theories"; particularly the one about the hidden date function.

I would advise going to Yourdon's Timebomb 2000 forum (www.yourdon.com and then look for the link to his forum) and doing a search of the archived posts using BEACH as your search term. You will find his theories pretty comprehensively pulled apart by people like Paul Davis - a guy who actually works in the embedded system field.

You could also visit Compuserve's Year 2000 forum and check out what Harlan Smith (one of the sysops and a 30 year veteran of military systems) has to say about the hidden date thing.

Beach has yet to provide a make and model of any embedded system that demonstrates the properties promoted in his theory. So, take anything Beach says with a huge grain of salt. For my money, I'd rather listen to the guys who actually work with embedded systems day in and day out.

Regards

-- Anonymous, May 20, 1999

Mike,

Hmmm... I didn't know Harlan had commented on Beach. I may have to track that down. I've known Harlan since I used to be on CServe. Sharp guy.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 1999

My $.02:

My experience with Aussies is very limited; several years ago I met several at a power device user's meeting, and they appeared to be using lots of the same kinds of equipment. And they de-regulated their whole industry years ago, which as you know is what we are going through right now in the US.

Yes, the article does have the same optimistic ring to it. I did notice a nuance about not getting software validation back at the end of June...if this is 6/99, then perhaps they are not on the same timeline to finish as us. Are there any Aussies out there working on this issue that can comment?

To Mr. Knight: Your comment is baffling: How in the world can we Y2k test a device that has no date function? If it is date-immune, how could it have a Y2k issue? There are devices with microprocessors but no clocks, and we won't test those either, because as far as y2k is concerned, they are no more susceptible to problems than a pet monkey is. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 1999

To Dan,

"To Mr. Knight: Your comment is baffling: How in the world can we Y2k test a device that has no date function? If it is date-immune, how could it have a Y2k issue? There are devices with microprocessors but no clocks, and we won't test those either, because as far as y2k is concerned, they are no more susceptible to problems than a pet monkey is. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment."

I am sure uou didn't misunderstand, Dan. I am no expert on this subject. I have just come to understand that a "system" can run with no date function but have a chip used in the system that does have a clock (and thereby a date) on the chip. You're right, you couldn't test a systm like this. There's part of the problem. If that single chip fails it might bring the whole, non-date functioning system down.

Can anyone clarify this or correct it if it is wrong?

-- Anonymous, May 21, 1999

Mr. Knight,

At an EPRI presentation, a representative from a MAJOR real time clock chip manufacturer was asked about the rumor that uP chips embedded with RTC's would totally fail, even if the RTC portion was unused. He confirmed that this was myth.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 1999