Is there any chance the Y2K software glitch problem is not real? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Is there any chance the Y2K software glitch problem is not real?

Pardon the naive question, but I am not a computer-savvy person. I use canned programs for the most part, but have had considerable experience as a CFO overseeing computer implementations.

I would be challenged to recite the implementations which I oversaw that were actually completed on time. I don't know if it is the personality of programmers or the complexity of the software-writing process, but these projects always seem to be finished after expected deadlines. I worked in private industry with people who were considerably more driven than government employees. Given my experiences, I shudder to think about software compliance at the government end.

Getting back to my question, I assume that maost software will have to be changed, given the level of concern I see in my reading. If so, we are faced with a diastrous situation. It is illogical to hope that programmers all areound the world, who have consistently underestimated the time needed to complete projects, will suddenly change their stripes and bring on implemenmtations in a timely manner. Based on my experience, if most software needs to be changed, there is NO Way it will be done on time.

-- mike (, August 24, 1999


"Is there any chance the Y2K software glitch problem is not real?"


-- Dennis (, August 24, 1999.

is the y2k problem real? is the Pope Catholic?


-- owl (, August 24, 1999.

I didn't want to start a new thread, so I'll post here at the top thread. I was just wondering what happened to the debunker forum. I saw it linked on one of the threads yesterday and wandered over there to stir up some trouble (remind me never to do that again - they're even more militant and absurd on their own turf), but anyway, now it's down, or at least I can't connect to it. I just wanted to go over and check some of the responses from yesterday and then abandon the wretched place! I don't always agree with the crowd on TB2000, but they are much closer to rational thought tan the debunker crowd IMO. If someone could check it or link it, it would be greatly appreciated.

Oh, and for the topic: NO!

(99-1=98 ---- 00-1=-1 (not 99) ---- 2000-1=1999)

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 24, 1999.

People have seen it in action. It's real. The questions are all about how much is fixed and will it be enough. And that, no one will know until the event.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (, August 24, 1999.

The Mythical Man- Month

-- Lane Core Jr. (, August 24, 1999.

The y2k software glitch is not a hoax. It will NEVER live up to the hype that know-nothings like North and Lord or know-littles like Yourdon and Hamasaki have built it to.


-- Super Polly (, August 24, 1999.


To the subject question the answer is no (without any ifs ands or buts).

That does not mean that most software will have to be changed. There is much software that has no particular date dependencies.

There is enough software that does have date dependencies, that vast effort is required to identify and fix erroneous code. How successful that effort will be remains to be seen.


-- Jerry B (, August 24, 1999.

Hey Super Polly, why are you and your pollyann brethren so silent on this thread:

The Simplicity of Y2K: I Just Have A Few Small Questions Left

-- a (a@a.a), August 24, 1999.


For what it's worth, I know of a rather substantial Nuclear Generating Station that is, in Cory's Phraseology done, DONE and I know they're done. Yet they run large tests every month to be sure they STAY done. Something like 98% of the software EVER WRITTEN is non compliant...and the Nuke personnel continually verify that none of that software greeps in, through, say, a worker loading a game and not deleting it, thereby compromising the system.

Look, I don't know wHether it will be as big a deal as North, Cory, etc make it out to be, but this stuff was supposed to be done by September 1998 leaving a whole year for testing, and in seven (7) days it will be September 1999!

I once worked at a process control company where at a meeting, a Sales Rep was told that the project was going to be late once again and he would have to so inform the client. As he left the meeting, he said "Alright, alright, I'll tell 'em!" Just as he got to the door, he whirled on his heels, pointed at us and YELLED "I know you programmers, and if the software has slipped this far, It's gonna slip ALL THE WAY!!!"

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in, August 24, 1999.

The Y2K problem is real enough. Citibank would never pay $950,000,000.00 to fix a problem that never existed, that was all an elaborate hoax.

>> Something like 98% of the software EVER WRITTEN is non compliant... <<

Any citation for this "fact"?

This 98% statement strikes me as impossible. The only way for software to be non-compliant is for it to be date-sensitive. There is no way on god's green earth that 98% of the software EVER WRITTEN is date-sensitive. I've written about 100,000 lines of software and not one line of it will fail at rollover because not one line was date-sensitive.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, August 24, 1999.

It would fail if the chain of systems it was running on failed.

-- Just Being (Pain@in.the.ass), August 24, 1999.

Computer software, like human thought, is full of omissions and assumptions.

-- Amy Leone (, August 24, 1999.


No. It's real. Organisations that are still in denial at this point are headed for extinction IMHO. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them.


Yourdon and Hamasaki have contributed greatly to your personal survival. Ed's book got the attention of a lot of professional software developers and senior IT (not political) managers because of his previous work. Cory has spent tremendous personal effort trying to sort out the state of reality. He has gotten a lot of geeks focused on fixing this. A great deal of what has been accomplished would not have happened without either of these guys. What have you done?

-- ng (, August 24, 1999.

Follow the money, that's all the information one really needs.

-- mar (, August 24, 1999.

I think what Mike is saying is that from his experience as a CFO in charge of implementation, the problem IS real.

I would have to add, Mike, that slipped deadlines aren't due to programmers' wrong estimates but due to management pressures on programmers and their managers to set earlier dates--dates that are unrealistic. When did the worker ever set a deadline?

-- Mara Wayne (, August 24, 1999.

Is it real? Yeah.

As to the implications of it, I gotta tell ya, beats me. Who the hell knows.... Will it be really bad?

$64,000 answer: Nobody knows. It's a pisser.

I must say, and this is coming from a guy who saw 8.5+ as a given, I have been less than impressed by the predictions so far. "These dates, *,*,* and* will bring troubles." OK, *,*,* and *, come and gone, no big problem. No worries so far mate. Does this mean that you can forget all about this so called Y2K computer problem?

I don't know, but despite a lack of early warning predictions come true, I am preparing for trouble, just to be safe. So should you.

-- Uncle Deedah (, August 24, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

So many people say "Hope for the best..." When I first "got it" in January, I realized the remediation itself was beyond hope. For a while I hoped for a sea change in public opinion which would cause Herculean efforts of continued remediation, and phenomenal cooperation in putting contingency plans into place. As each day goes by I become ever more depressed. I now see the situation as beyond all hope. Hope is even irrelevant. The code just doesn't care. The best you can do is protect yourself as best you can, and cautiously encourage those around you to do the same.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 25, 1999.

Is it real?!? Did Rose Kennedy have a black dress?

-- Pearlie Sweetcake (, August 25, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ