Here is the second (and last) round of the debate between "Hoffmeister" and myself. I explain the reasons that I'm ending my participation at the end of the thread.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 21, 1999

Answers

Steve, how about a round of mud wrestling?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

Thanks, but no thanks. If I'd wanted to mudwrestle, I'd have held the debate on the "Bonkers Board". On second thought, I retract that statement -- it's an insult to upstanding mudwrestlers everywhere.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 21, 1999.

Thank you Steve and thank you Hoff.

I think you both have alot to offer on the subject and hope that both of you continue to post on this forum.

My two cents - I favor preparation but have no idea on what is adequate or prudent. Which is why I am here on this forum and why I try to do some personal and community preparation every week.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 21, 1999.

This was a rather strange debate. Essentially, Heller is saying that bug software problems can cause a lot of confusion and take a long time to fix. Hoffmeister is saying yes, that's true, but we are experiencing these problems *now*, rather than later, and we're fixing them *now* and the world seems pretty normal.

In response, Heller emphasizes the sheer difficulty MCI had with Lucent software, and Hoffmeister replies that yes, they're having those difficulties *now*, rather than later.

Heller sums up by saying that IF suppliers and vendors have problems, and there are lots of y2k bugs to battle at the same time, it can bring down the company. And Hoffmeister says that if dominoes were to happen, we'd be seeing them already due to implementation problems, and we're not seeing them.

So I'd summarize by saying that Heller is simply emphasizing, expanding on, and illustrating Hoffmeister's basic point, over and over. And all Hoffmeister can do is say Yes! yes! we ARE having those problems, as bad as we'll ever see them. And they aren't making a dent in our lives at all. And since they're happening RIGHT NOW, the worse you can make them out to be, the more minor everyone can see that they really are.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 21, 1999.

Steve Heller is such a ninny. Now when the rest of the goof troop goes away silently sulking then we can finally be rid of this ridiculous apocalypticism. And good riddance!

-- (I've@been.to Heller and back), August 21, 1999.

It should be kept in mind that this debate only focuses on the problems of organizations which have attacked their remediation problems in a somewhat competent manner.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 22, 1999.

Flint, ole buddy, congratulations on your 20-day non-stop non-smoking rally. Your willpower and stamina are unquestionable, so you'll keep it going and succeed, Y2K or not. I know how hard it is to quit smoking.

Now I'm not sure what's going on with you Flint, but I'm just about ready to turn into "honeymoon mode" with you (intellectually of course). I've been gladly surprised by your suggestions and postings over at the GPS threads, exception made of your "I don't care if 90% of government systems don't work well". But I can't believe you really meant it, did you?

Now getting back to the Heller-Hoffmeister Debate Round 2, I have a question I wish you would please answer in depth, if all possible. 'Cause I would agree with you and Hoff in that if everything/most/many IT and non-IT systems were being implemented/live/on-line RIGHT NOW, and in view of the fact that we are not really witnessing that many disasters yet, then Y2K wouldn't amount to a terrible BIG deal, right?

But my questions then is :

Flint, Hoff, do you REALLY believe that most/many/all IT and non-IT systems are being implemented/live/on-line RIGHT NOW ? Also INTERNATIONALLY ??

I can't believe your really mean it, do you?

Take care, and keep your cigarettes out of sight.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 22, 1999.

Peter, you are right on the mark.

Like what about US SMBs. Actually, have all SMBs finished impact analysis? Have many/most/all received vendor-promised y2k-compliant products and are trying them live, on-line RIGHT NOW? What about embeddeds? Quite frankly I can't follow the Flint line of thought.

What about Italy? They admittedly haven't finished awareness but promise to get on with remediation real soon now. Brazil? Russia? China? Saudi Arabia? (Yes, we do need their oil) Venezuela? Indonesia?

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 22, 1999.

Flint, quit thinking about fags for a moment and put on your trifocals. Now lookey:

Now. How can you and Hoff contend that we will see nothing more spectacular than what we have seen to date when the government's own consultant says the failures have just started to escalate?

-- a (a@a.a), August 22, 1999.

You're right. Who am I to disagree with the government's own consultant. According to this chart, we won't see enough failures this year to really affect us much. So as usual, we wait till next year. Sounds like a baseball manager.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 22, 1999.

'a', the GartnerGroup chart is projecting actual date-processing errors; not errors due to system implementations.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 22, 1999.

Flint, Hoff, I feel you are bypassing my question pretty swiftly, but it still holds.

Could you please answer my questions? I'm allways willing to learn as Hoff says. Please educate me.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 22, 1999.

George, not bypassing your question.

The orignal post I made assumed 66% of the systems would be addressed by the end of the year.

Even taking an estimate of 50% doesn't change the conclusion. That is, assume 50% of the systems are completely untouched.

I provided backup for the number, from multiple sources. Even the latest GartnerGroup study 'a' references.

Again, I'll ask if you have information, with some backup, that says even these numbers are grossly overstated. So far, you haven't provided anything, except some individual examples, which can neither be confirmed nor denied.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 22, 1999.

GPS, a real example of a rollover, nothing happened. We all waited on pins and needles, waited for planes to land on miscalculated runways, waited for boats to be lost at sea, waited for car to run off the road, and nothing. The failure rate indicates the possible failure rate of things to come on 1/1/00 and nothing. Were all these receivers remediated? Were all the systems on-board and on the ground remediated?

MCI puts numerous systems out in production every day. If out of all the systems that go into production this year, only one causes the FAILURE that happened this month, then 1/1/00 should be a walk in the park.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 22, 1999.

Hoff: Could you please rearrange the words in your reply so that they mean something?

Maria: You waited on pins and needles for planes to land on miscalculated runways? Damn I though you were a polly. I went out to dinner and got loaded...

-- a (a@a.a), August 22, 1999.

Sorry, 'a', didn't realize you had a reading problem.

Tell me which 'words' you want 'rearranged', and I'll try to help.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 22, 1999.

I said:

How can you and Hoff contend that we will see nothing more spectacular than what we have seen to date when the government's own consultant says the failures have just started to escalate?

You said:

'a', the GartnerGroup chart is projecting actual date-processing errors; not errors due to system implementations.

So, are you saying that we will see no greater system implementation error rate? I was referring to errors in general. Which will certainly skyrocket after the rollover. Don't think so? Do you feel the world's y2k woes have already been handled? Are you smoking Sagan cigarettes?

I personally think we will have already experienced a collapse of the financial system by 010100, by that I mean bank runs, market crashes and foreign currency failures. We will headed for a major recession after rollover, y2k problem or no y2k problem. The y2k failures will simply push the recession into a deep depression, and in today's violent, volatile world, that will most probably lead to serious war and civil unrest.

It's not too late to fill your cupboard, Hoff.

-- a (a@a.a), August 22, 1999.

No, 'a'.

Implementation error rates are what they are.

New implementations will continue. Just as MCI was implementing a new system, apparently with no relationship to Y2k.

What I am saying is that a dramatic increase in new system implememtations has occurred, due to Y2k. And that the resulting error rate is of the same magnitude as that which can be expected at the rollover due to Y2k errors.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 22, 1999.

What I am saying is that a dramatic increase in new system implememtations has occurred, due to Y2k.

Yes a dramatic increase. And an insignificant amount in the big picture.

And that the resulting error rate is of the same magnitude as that which can be expected at the rollover due to Y2k errors.

I have tried to follow your logic in your various posting, where you dart between trivializing Capers Jones residual bug rates, flailing over Gartner's "look ahead is worse than look behind" theory, and being too overly optimistic of the integrity of the software biz in general. And I simply do not understand how you can justify your previous statement.

-- a (a@a.a), August 22, 1999.

That should be insufficient amount in the big picture, not insignificant.

-- a (a@a.a), August 22, 1999.

Hoff, you say I haven't provided anything. Well then let me remind you that 75% of code is outside the US.

But I still have a harder time trying to follow your line of thought Hoff when you say that "leaving 50% of systems untouched" would still mean a 'walk in the park' as Marma says.

So, according to you Hoff, leaving 50% of all systems in the world, both IT and non-IT, unchanged, uncorrected, just as they are today ('untouched' was the idiom you used) with all their Y2K non- compliances deep inside their guts, would hardly be noticed by anyone.

Refineries, banks everywhere, social securities, power plants...

You just can't mean that Hoff. Would you please clarify and/or expand?

Big Dog, could you please bark at me some and make my neurons happy?

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 22, 1999.

'a', Steve: could either of you please translate for me what Hoff is trying to say?

Thank you

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 22, 1999.