Two more examples of Y2k glitches : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

See and

-- regular (zzz@z.z), June 11, 1999


WOW...$10,000 fine for being nine days late on a payment of $67,000+?

I think I'd better look for my bills and pay them today.


-- Anita Spooner (, June 11, 1999.

Um, forgive the pedantry but . . .

both of those stories relate to problems with the installation and operation of updated, upgraded, or remediated software. No details are given as to any other amendments that were made to the previous system at the same time as the remediation took place. In the sense that ANY new software system tends to throw a glitch or two in the immediate period after installation, it seems a bit of a stretch to classify these as "Y2K glitches". Couldnt they just be "software teething troubles "?

If the need for verifyable negative Y2K stories has become such that something minor like this comes along and becomes immediately flagged and exaggerated as "evidence" of an impending Y2K 10+, it seems to me that the ultra-doom position is indeed under severe pressure from the lack of actual failure due to REAL rollover problems. (just my opinion)

Is the plan that we now classify every minor error which occurs post- Y2K-remediation on any computer system in the world as a "Y2K glitch" ?

In that case, my Firewall had a Y2K glitch today, when the NT operating system it resides on froze and we had to reboot the box. After all, that server HAS been remediated. And NT NEVER normally freezes up . . does it ?

"Where do you want to get stuck today ?"

I blame those pesky Y2K glitches.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (, June 11, 1999.

Any failure occuring that affects Y2K remediation, or testing (done for something else) that affects a program affected by year 2000 symptoms, or affecting a program with year 2000 symptoms, is a potential Y2K troublespot.

Any action that affects the any of the above (including routine data entry) that affects records that impact Y2K remediation, has Y2K impact - now.

Fort example, somebody breaks into an office and steals the master set of keys. All locks have to be replaced, and alll keys have to be re-issued, right? So, you have to get new keys so you can get into wotk on the weekend. If the project was delayed because you couldn't get to work on Saturday, the project is still late - regardless of whether the burgaler intended to make you late or not.

You still missed the deadline - but because you couldn't work, not because of the burglary.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (, June 11, 1999.

The problems related to implementing new software (because the old is not Y2K compliant) is definitely a Y2K problem. It takes time to sort out the idiosyncrasies of new software and get it to perform at least the functionality found in the old, possibly comfortable stuff. When you have to do it in a hurry, important details may be neglected. Attention to detail may not happen. When you are doing a conversion in less time than you need, mistakes and omissions happen. This is why I do not believe many companies when I hear the date they started working, the magnitude of their task and the date on which the say they will be finished. Having worked for many years for a software company, I have been project manager on many conversions. It isn't even just a matter of getting the hardware software up and the old data converted, you have to get the users and/or data entry people trained and comfortable. It doesn't happen magically.

The problems reported above aren't life threatening, but they indicate what happens when people are working in unfamiliar territory. There will be a lot of people working with unfamiliar software or hardware very soon. Even if the computers work correctly, if the people don't, we'll have problems.

-- Sally Strackbein (, June 11, 1999.

Wolverine said: If the need for verifyable negative Y2K stories has become such that something minor like this comes along and becomes immediately flagged and exaggerated as "evidence" of an impending Y2K 10+"... I didn't exaggerated it or say it was "evidence" of anything doomish. Simply that they were examples of Y2k glitches, which they most certainly are. Two more data points.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), June 11, 1999.

It would seem that the pedantry was somewhat less than sufficiently pedantic. :-)

-- Jerry B (, June 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ