Dave Hall who a year ago was talking 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. --

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 08, 1999

Answers

Cherri,

What's the link again to that article? I couldn't get the one you posted to work.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 08, 1999.

http://www.year2000.unt.edu/topic11/

Does this help?

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 08, 1999.

The way that the embedded system problem was first explained to me - i.e. the way Gary North STILL explains it - it seemed certain that it alone would cause at least something fitting the name Teotwawki, and the rest of y2k on top of it would knock-out the civilisation, pretty much, more or less. Nowadays it appears that overall, and with some devastating exceptions, the embedded systems problem is about an order of magnitude less fubar than it first seemed (to me.) But remember, it at first appeared teotwawkian, now it's just really quite serious. The rest of the remediation is doing about as bad as was initially feared. Poole was trying to say the other day that non-emb.sys y2k problems would just have "business" consequences. I think that together they'll cause enough business problems to bring down the finance system. Surely this will have "non-business" consequences for you and me.

Wasn't banking supposed to one leg of the three-legged-chair-iron-triangle-thingo?

-- Number Six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

One of the remediation guys at the organization where I work said that they found and fixed chips in the steam-based heating system that were very definitely show stoppers. While good news that they were dealt with, bad news that they existed at all.

-- Dave (aaa@aa.com), June 08, 1999.

If I'm not mistaken, one "show stopper" out of how many "I'm OK, your OKs"? I don't feel much better about those odds. I'm sure they do however!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 08, 1999.

I don't expect "showstopper" embedded system problems to be the type that can be fixed over the rollover weekend. Not unless the company has stocked up on replacement parts, which I also don't expect to be the case. Even where a manual workaround is possible, how many weeks is it really feasible?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

Why not ask internationally renowned embedded system expert Bruce Beach what he thinks? Oop! He deleted all references to the "Beach Bug" from his Webpal site. Wonder why? In his bio, he claims to have a patent on a game for teaching chess. Could this be the same patent he insisted was a microprocessor patent and NOT a chess game when he was masquerading as an embedded systems expert?

A while back, someone started a thread titled something like "When will the rats start deserting the ship" refering to those living in WDC. It looks like De Jager, Yourdon, and Beach are the first three to jump off the HMS Doomer!

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 08, 1999.

Cherri,

You posted this exact same thing on May 17. Including mis-spelling "guru".

If anyone's interested in the previous discussion, here it is: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qGe

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 08, 1999.

Garu refers to a werewolf.

-- h (h@h.h), June 08, 1999.

Dave Hall and Gartner Group have consistently avoided analysis of the systemic impact of y2k, "systemic" meaning many things, including the world (as in 'planet Earth').

I am amazed of how often seemingly intelligent and obviously articulate "experts" forget that the USA is NOT the only country in the world, and that today's globalized economy affects the US economy directly at its bottom line, as unequivocally proven by the Department of Commerce y2k Report on world trade and its impact upon the US economy.

Cherri, this gentleman "expert" subtly forgets all of the above, including the fact that the rest of the world is way, way, way behind in y2k remediation, let alone engaging the embedded chip problem, about which they know NOTHING in many important countries such as Brazil (still with state agency technology), Indonesia, Italy, and many others. Maybe Mr. Hall doesn't care about the y2k situation in these countries, but the US Department of Commece does.

Furthermore, many other experts bluntly disagree with Mr. Hall as far as the embedded chip problem in the US. Please check out Peter de Jager's web site "www.year2000.com" as it is currently running a feature article on this subject.

Chevron Corp., an oil & gas & petrochemical giant, also disagrees with Mr. Hall.

Please don't rush to judgement on any y2k analysis. Intelligent and capable human beings can do better than that.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 08, 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, but it's free. It's in the "Embedded System" section. It's a working group with lots of discussions by professionals.

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 08, 1999.

Cheryl:

A few questions regarding the "not-so good news". Aren't #1 and #4 in direct conflict with each other? In one case they say don't reinvent the wheel and in the second they say don't trust what the vendor tells you -- do your own tests. And #3 doesn't make sense. Are they saying that a cosmetic error on a display could cause a trained medical professional to give a wrong diagnosis? What types of diagnoses are affected by what year it is or by what year a display says it is? Finally, #5 sounds a little far-fetched. Any proof that this has or could happen, i.e. someone performing maintenance functions would be unaware of the work being done for Y2K and do something so stupid?

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.

-- Just Curious (Your.Email@ddress.com), June 08, 1999.

<Aren't #1 and #4 in direct conflict with each other? In one case they say don't reinvent the wheel and in the second they say don't trust what the vendor tells you -- do your own tests. >

#1 and #4 are not in conflict.

#1 refers to individuals within the same company - and/or various companies within an industry sector. Many are working on similar systems. Not enough communication causes redundancy.

#4 - Don't trust vendors. Check out FDA site. They name some specific equipment and manufacturers where this has occured. There are many other examples.

IF YOU'RE REALLY INTERESTED ... GO TO THIS SITE: It's a working group with lots of discussions by professionals. You have to register, but it's free. It's in the "Embedded System" section. http://www.year2000.unt.edu/WCS/

You'll find specific examples for what you're asking about there.

And #3 doesn't make sense. Are they saying that a cosmetic error on a display could cause a trained medical professional to give a wrong diagnosis? What types of diagnoses are affected by what year it is or by what year a display says it is?

You seem to be interested in medical stuff - check out archives here at Rx2000 listserve: http://www.rx2000.org/data/listserv/digest/1999/ Pretty interesting. 90% of discussion participants are medical professionals or those actively involved in Y2K healthcare remediation. You can sign up to be on the list here: http://www.rx2000.org/data/forms/listserv.htm

<Finally, #5 sounds a little far-fetched. Any proof that this has or could happen, i.e. someone performing maintenance functions would be unaware of the work being done for Y2K and do something so stupid?>

Well, it's not far-fetched when you have complicated integrated systems, with work being done by various individuals off-site and on-site. I've even done that on occasion in my past life when I was programming. Picked up a wrong disk. Another time my client had a power surge, lost some info, used back-up tape to recover. But, fields had been change and everything got screwed up. We had to work thru the weekend recovering and doing manual entry.

Read the following CLOSELY ...

"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 have1000 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."

Many people can be involved. What's your suggestion to ensure that this doesn't happen?

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 08, 1999.

Hall writes:

"I no longer think that there will be major collapses caused by embedded systems impacts."

He's not ruling out minor problems, and he does indeed list valid concerns that could easily lead to minor problems. But notice the word *longer*. He used to expect collapses. What changed his mind was an overwhelming amount of hard data, resulting from a truly widescale investigation.

I agree with his current bottom line: There *will* be problems and we *will* be able to deal with them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.

<He's not ruling out minor problems, and he does indeed list valid concerns that could easily lead to minor problems.>

And he's not ruling out major problems either. No one knows. Not you nor I.

<But notice the word *longer*. He used to expect collapses. What changed his mind was an overwhelming amount of hard data, resulting from a truly widescale investigation.>

Dave made that pronouncement back in 1997. Since then much has been done - and much still needs to be done.

Dave Hall got involved with this stuff about 3 years ago - when awareness of embedded systems issues was non-existent. Dave has been working towards a SOLUTION - educating and creating awareness for those professionals actually involved with embedded system remediation. He's been a conduit of information.

Had Dave and others like him, not worked tirelessly - often gratis - to build awareness and educate and apply pressure to remediate ... the situation would have been catastrophic. But, much has been done over the past 1-1/2 years. And much remains to be done.

He was my inspiration to research and develop a 59-page report on medical devices, which I made available free to the public. You'd be surprised at some of the big name pharmaceutical companies, HMO's and foreign countries that requested my report. And the follow-up "thank you's" because the report highlighted some areas they hand't considered.

Don't try and minimize the problem. There are still many that think Y2K is no big deal. Some who think this way are business owners. They could be lulled into doing nothing and "fixing on failure" with this "minor" problem spin.

None of us know where and when problems will occur. A multitude of "minor" problems can become "major" problems. None of us know resultant cascading effects.

The situation remains serious.

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 09, 1999.