June 7 PC Week Y2K articles

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

PC Week just arrived on my desk. The June 7th edition has a Y2K cover and a series of articles.

http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,406082,00.html

I don't have time to read the articles today, but I thought the techs on this forum might enjoy the link. In the past, I have questioned why the IT trade press has been largely quiet on Y2K. The least I can do is share the news.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999

Answers

Interesting article, and quite upbeat. Two points if I may:

1) No information is given as to whether the "systems" discussed were "PC-based" (PC-Week, after all), or mainframes.

2) No DETAILED information was provided, i.e. company names and IV&V information.

I really don't want to discount "good news", but I NEED to see DETAILS. I'm sick to death of "fluff" pieces.

My opinions only, of course.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 07, 1999.


Here's a hotlink for the Browser-Challenged.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 08, 1999.

Dennis

With respect, the whole set of articles, taken as a group, suggest a reference to the broad school of IT infrastructure, including big- iron and legacy systems, and even embedded systems, suggesting that these elements have been examined and incorporated into the "PC" view of the Y2K issue. For example . .

Zoellner's department, based in Madison, relies on many massive applications, including the state's largest users of mainframe cycles: CARES, which supports W-2, food stamps, child care and medical assistance programs, runs about 4.5 million lines of code; the KIDS child support code is another million lines.

PC Week Labs has found no substitute for performing a thorough inventory of exactly what code is performing what tasks and in what combinations as part of every critical business function. Such an inventory often paves the way, moreover, for a dramatic housecleaning (see story).

By any measure, DWD's effort has been effective: CARES and the state's unemployment insurance applications--another major DWD responsibility--passed Y2K tests "with flying colors," said DWD Secretary Linda Stewart.

Clearly, the main focus of PC-Week is bound to be PC's, but your question seemed to relate to whether or not the broad conclusions of the editorials took into account any aspect of non-PC technology. I think it is safe to suppose that to a reasonable degree, they do.

I am encouraged to note that the general feel of this report is one of balanced optimism, whilst at no stage understating the importance of the subject matter. This is not "polly spin", nor is it a "doomer heads up". It attempts to relay current state-of-play information, from professionals at the sharp end, and (to my view) should have been discussed and analysed far more on this forum.

Personally, I think that the importance of quality reporting such as this, from a reliable and respectable source, should be apparent to those of us who try (wherever possible) to occupy the "middle ground" and maintain a degree of objectivity over the developing state of play, and cannot be overstated.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.


whoops !!!

My {snip} and {end snip} delimeters vanished in transit. Darn, it's hard to break the html-tag habit.

Please insert the abovementioned tags around paragraphs 2 thru 4.

Regards.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.


Somewhere between 60 and 80% of mission critical systems will be remediated. There is and will be significant good news throughout 1999. For some specific organizations, that may approach 100% and could include 'x' percentage of non-critical systems.

Good news is good news. But it doesn't alter the overall equation, which has continued to suggest that a maxmimum of 80% of all critical systems will reach satisfactory compliance levels.

And that we don't know whether the effects of the remaining mission-critical systems (whether they are at 0% or 90% compliance, intra-application), plus the lack of attention to non-critical systems, plus the interface between those systems, plus the exposure of embedded systems, will result in Y2K impacts of "5" (my view of the global minimum) or "10".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 08, 1999.



Thanks for your prompt reply. Food for thought. Also, I have to ask (sorry to resurrect this old chestnut BD), but . . .

Please could you DEFINE "COMPLIANCE".

Little word, very broad range of possible interpretations.

If you re-read your posting, replacing the word "compliant" with the word "functioning", does it still represent your view on the scope of the game ? If so, then I can safely surmise that YOUR definition of "compliant" is = "functioning". However, this simple and usable definition is NOT to my knowledge an industry standard. (It's probably worth keeping that in mind when you refer to statistics on "compliance".)

Does it change anything if we use "error-free" to replace "functioning" for our definition of "compliant" ? What about "usable" ?

Also can you please provide source references for your percentages on projected maximum numbers of systems remediated ?

Best Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.


W said [I reply]

If you re-read your posting, replacing the word "compliant" with the word "functioning", does it still represent your view on the scope of the game ?

[I can accept that, with the major caveat that release of Y2K remediated code, even though it traverses much of 1999, will be highly concentrated in 4Q. One of the major unknowns, IMO, is the effects on global infrastructure "functioning", of this enormous and unprecedented release process, especially when added to the code base that will not be remediated. I simply disagree entirely with those who see this as IT business-as-usual. So "functioning", to me, implies, "works well enough", being less rigorous than compliance. Okay, but with the, to me, alarming IF outlined above. An IF amply suppporting the most thorough gov, biz, individual prep, IMO.]

If so, then I can safely surmise that YOUR definition of "compliant" is = "functioning". However, this simple and usable definition is NOT to my knowledge an industry standard. (It's probably worth keeping that in mind when you refer to statistics on "compliance".)

[There are no metrics standards. Collection of compliance percentages is, precisely, a joke. It is largely as anecdotal in its evidentiary value as when we read posts from "Joe" saying their company is fixed or toast. Consequently, we could be further ahead of the compliance game than we think, as well as further behind. I agree with Yourdon's Deja Vu analysis, since it corresponds exactly to my own IT experience over two decades. I see no reason to assume we are ahead, or, alas, even with what is being reported.]

Does it change anything if we use "error-free" to replace "functioning" for our definition of "compliant" ? What about "usable" ?

[Business continuity is good enough, even if all systems are breaking and the geeks are on 24x7. Compliant businesses swallowing up other entities in a Darwinian dash is also good enough. I live in the real world.]

Also can you please provide source references for your percentages on projected maximum numbers of systems remediated ?

[Take em or leave em. Use whichever ones please you. They're mostly meaningless anyway. With all due respect, I don't have the clock time for that anymore. The fact that, in June, 1999, you/we even have to ask which statistics are reliable about a problem of global magnitude and with global impact already says it all.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 08, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ