I may be repeating a thread, but:

Y2K Newswire learns that, according to a Pentagon story distributed by the Associated Press, no organization in the United States has conducted end-to-end testing on anything larger than 44 systems. A test of 2% of mission-critical systems is hailed as the "ultimate in testing." If true, it means most Y2K testing is a total joke. Here's the analysis...

Article at: http://206.54.108.130

-- winna (??@??.com), July 15, 1999

Answers

Yeah, and the whole world is going to go up in a ball of flames because of Y2K but nobody, NOBODY is reporting anything. Gee, I wonder because, there is nothing to report? Just how would a report on paranoia be anyway? Five minutes?

Get a grip already! There would be no way to keep this under wraps if it were going to be as bad as you think. You own logic defies your theory. TEOTWAWKI? Yeah okay, whatever. It's just a big conspiracy I know, I know.

What about the JULY 1 rollover? Nothing messing up my life... no big catastrophes...Where's your YOURDON now??

WHEN WILL YOU DOOMERS SEE THAT YOUR WRONG????

How many more failed predictions will it take before you realize that you've been duped?

Have your spouse slap some sense into before you go off the deep end. If you don't have a spouse go see a friend. If you don't have any friends go see a shrink. But get some help already!

-- (lurking@who.cares), July 15, 1999.

NEWSFLASH

Testing says Y2KNewswire is a joke!

-- Loose Wires (need@replacing.now), July 15, 1999.

I am getting fed up with ass-wipes continuing to harp on the lack of any FISCAL YEAR 2000 problems somehow giving a clean bill of health to potential Y2K (calendar year 2000) problems. The former affect ONLY a narrow range of financial applications, that can be easily "worked around" via extending the artificial fiscal year definition. The latter affects hardware, software (including operating systems), embedded systems/chips -- i.e., the entire spectrum of the life support systems that we depend on. (For the ten thousandth time.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 15, 1999.

The only failed predictions I've seen are those which predict no failures next year.

Boy, the lurkers sure are getting "testy," aren't they? Used to be the lurkers, would lurk, and the writers would write with some recognized label - so as we could tell who we were talking to.

And who could be ignored as a known liar.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 15, 1999.

"WHEN WILL YOU DOOMERS SEE THAT YOUR WRONG????"

I'LL THINK ABOUT IT ON 2000-01-02!!! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

lurking@who.cares says, "Have your spouse slap some sense into [you] before you go off the deep end."

Lurking, very very ugly stuff. Get help now...please. Even if you can say that you have never hit a woman, and never would, the fact that you consider your comment to be either humorous or appropriate is deeply troubling.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 15, 1999.

What is the failure rate with testing of embedded products within a single design? The assertion is that components may change on a product in mid-production and that some products of the same design will be compliant and some will not. You have highlighted a common misconception, which is that buying different batches of chips can affect the compliance status outcome. The reality of this is that the failure rate is zero. It is simply not true. We have all heard the stories about systems where some pass and some fail, but it has nothing to do with where the chips came from... the issue is to do with the version of vendor's firmware code the supposedly identical systems are running. Systems fail in the millennium because they are comparing dates, and doing so incorrectly, which is a function of the vendor's code. Clock chips do not compare dates, nor do they fail at the year 00. Microprocessors cannot maintain date and time all by themselves, so are not to blame either. It is the vendor software which holds the key, and, yes, vendors frequently update their firmware code to include new features and fixes to old ones. One such fix is how the system compares year dates, so you may get two identical systems (or so you think) which are running different releases of the vendor's firmware. One may fail, the other may not. The firmware release number is usually visible on a label stuck to the ROM chips which hold the firmware code.

-- cd (artful@dodger.com), July 15, 1999.

RUOK,

There are people on this forum that think some computer glitch known as Y2K is GOING TO END THE WORLD, and you get a little bitchy about my crack regarding having your spouse smack some sense into you? HA HA HA!

Unbelievable. I think there is some common thread here. No sense of humor = easily controlled, easily controlled = susceptible to meme's, susceptible to meme's = Doomer, Doomer = RUOK.

Man o man, get a frigging grip you humorless whacko.

(Oh by the way, what did the guy say to the woman with two black eyes? Nothing, he already said it twice. Why didn't John Wayne Bobbit want to have sex the day after? He was feeling disconnected. How did they know Christa Macaulife had dandruff? They found her head and shoulders...!)

There you go, examples of humor, study them and try to find a way to laugh at yourself for being a DOOMER! You'll be a happier person, maybe.

-- (just@lurking.who cares), July 15, 1999.

DELETE the prior thread and TOS the author.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 15, 1999.

Dude

You went too far with the Christa M crack. There ain't no way to make that funny. Ever.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), July 15, 1999.

Any testing is better than no testing. This testing, even if done on a here-to-for unheard of scale, is still *very* limited.

But, not to worry. It will all be tested, all too soon.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 15, 1999.

If possible, could the bad taste jokes be deleted?

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

Sysop, please delete--and please complain to the poster's ISP.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 15, 1999.

Testing has always been considered a joke by many IT staff, I've worked at places where minimal testing is carried out for all projects, for a number of reasons:

its the last phase of the project life cycle which usually has to be skimped for cost and time reasons

pressure from users and management who think that the system has been "written"

lack of professionalism amongst some IT ers, many of whom don't know how to test or create the complex environment needed, eg many files with realistic data

the developers working on changes sometimes don't have to do production support

-- dick of the dale (rdale@coynet.com), July 16, 1999.