Mr. Yourdon:

In reference to your "Open Letter" to Alan Greenspan, I would like to make the following comments:

• You criticize the dearth of technical computer expertise in the inner circle of federal decision-makers, and in particular single out the President's Council.
  
  I would suggest, sir, that you review the members of the President's Council, available here. Even a quick perusal will reveal that a title of CIO, or equivalent, is quite prevalent. While a CIO may at times not be technologically competent, it has been my experience that typically, they do have quite a bit of experience.
  
  The first member I looked up was John Gilligan, the DOE representative. His biography is available here.
  
  A second is Lee Holcomb, the NASA representative. His biography is available here.
  
  And I have no doubt that continuing down the list would find more of the same.
  
  In fact, there is little question in my mind, that the technical expertise represented by the members of the President's Council far outweighs whatever technical expertise you, their critic, may possess.
  
  You apparently criticize without research. Your Yourdon Credibility Index just went down a notch.
  
• Your next point is in regard to budgets and deadlines. As has been previously pointed out, you reveal an apparent lack of understanding on how government funding works. In addition, Y2k has become the secret password to the government vault. All manner of funding requests are now virtually approved automatically, if some form of connection can be built to Y2k. Using the federal government as a model for budget efficiency would be laughable in any other context, and indeed is here as well.
  
  Your points regarding schedules and deadlines merely reinforce the foresight shown by setting early deadline dates. Yes, no doubt many, missed the early deadlines. But setting these early targets allowed overruns, and allowed time for those missing the deadline to still complete prior to the date change.
  
  Again, the apparent lack of understanding lowers your Yourdon Credibility Index another notch.
  
• You carefully pick words to claim Mr. Greenspan is not addressing physical infrastructure. It would be just as reasonable to conclude that Mr. Greenspan recognizes that non-electronic infrastructure is not at risk to failure due to the date change.
  
  It could also be, as you suggest, that Mr. Greenspan is only addressing areas within his scope of expertise. Perhaps, you could learn by example?
  
• In general, your points about the possible failures due to Y2k. In the last year, we have experienced and are experiencing the most massive upheaval in computer systems ever witnessed. Both in the implementation of new systems, and the modification of existing systems.
  
  Anyone experienced with IT understands the impact of this upheaval. New systems do not go in error free, and modified systems rarely if ever are reimplemented without introducing new errors. Virtually every instance of "Y2k Related" failures can be traced to these types of errors, and not to actual errors in date processing.
  
  And these errors are not minor. The MCI/Lucent story, while not Y2k related, provides a perfect example. They apparently spent about a week diagnosing the errors, and never truly uncovered the cause. The potential source could literally be anything, from load capacity to invalid installation to actual code problems.
  
  In fact, using sources you yourself so often cite, it is readily apparent that the resulting errors from this massive upheaval far outweigh the potential Y2k errors in total, and the simultaneous occurrence of these errors are at least on par with potential Y2k errors at the date change itself.
  
  Perhaps, Mr. Greenspan understands this? Where is the evidence for "systemic" collapse, that will "bring the whole thing down like a house of cards"?
  
  You cite international uncertainties with "corrupt data" and banks. Banks in the US are a perfect example. One can quibble about percentages, but having been through two rounds of audits, it is almost certain that somewhere over 90% of the banks have in fact either fixed or replaced their systems. Where is the "data corruption" from the undeniable errors that have resulted?
  
  In fact, where is any evidence, other than the tired string of "IF"s?
  
  Greenspan states it is "beginning of wisdom in thinking about the Y2K problem to recognize that failures and breakdowns in mechanical and electronic systems are a normal part of our everyday life", not that this is where wisdom ends.
  
  The Greenspan Credibility index went up two notches here. Apparently, he has a much firmer grasp of IT reality than you, the "expert" with "30+ years of experience".
  
• You claim you "would be very reluctant to trust the safety of my family to the ingenuity of some unknown engineers". But these people have and do trust the safety of their families to these engineers every day. And my guess is these engineers have been and are faced with far more complex problems than Y2k.
  
• You severely disparage the resourcefulness of the workforce "who can barely swim through water, let alone walk on water". It has been my experience through project implementations that they can, and do, tend to get the job done, even under unexpected and trying conditions.
  
• Your points on time constraints may be valid. But where are the resultant strains on the available work force? Where is the massive increase in demand for Y2k remediators, that had some predicting $500/hr rates? Some have suggested that they have just "given up", but where is the evidence for this? My experience is the last thing to happen would be to simply "give up"; corporate management, in particular, would immediately tend to through "more bodies" and "more money" at the problem.
  
• The remainder seems merely more reinforcement of the general belief that "they" cannot be trusted, and are not telling the truth. Quite frankly, I don't have the patience to wade through these again.

 

In short, Mr. Yourdon, while you may have credibility as an "expert" on "Preparations", as witnessed by your testimony before Congress, your credibility as an "IT Expert" on Y2k was spent long ago. Obviously, my opinion; an opinion just as obviously not shared by the majority of this forum. So be it; I suspect your post served its purpose with its intended audience.

You have been guilty of grossly over-exaggerating the potential effects of systems failures in the past, and continue to do so now. Through your various "enterprises", you have set yourself up to directly profit from the fear and uncertainty you seem determined to continue to inspire. You both sell the "disease", and sell the "cure".

Now, I don't begrudge anyone the ability to make a living. How you do so is none of my business, whatever my opinion.

As an "IT Expert" with "30+ years of experience", your statements and opinions on the potential effects of Y2k should have carried some weight.

But as the statements and opinions of someone positioned to capitalize on the very fear and uncertainty you yourself create? Sorry, but you're just another salesman, knocking at the door.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999

Answers

Hoff,

You are pathetic. Try again. Maybe you will win a prize.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 21, 1999.

dot@dash, it's YOU who are pathetic. Someone posts a brilliant rebuttal to Yourdon's ramblings, and all you can do is respond with a perjorative.

If you have a better argument, give.

-- Ceteganda (ceteganda@bujold.net), September 21, 1999.

Opinions can be had by one and all concerning the nature of the century date rollover problems.

Opinions are available, it seems, punctuating every point on the compass rose. And the process continues.

Soon, more actual hands-on experience will be gained.

The meter is running.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 21, 1999.

Keen ad hominem, Hoff. Nice straw men, too. For example, Yourdon didn't say there weren't any computer specialists involved with the President's council. He said that the impression is that "most of the decision makers in government and private industry would not recognize a computer if they fell over one." That certainly is my impression. Citing a few exceptions in a list does not necessarily apply to "most of the decision makers in government and private industry". But, you knew that, didn't you?

Yourdon whipped that essay out right quick. Considering that, it is a magnificent effort. But I have found that it is usually a mistake to whip something out quickly: it is worthwhile to spend a great deal of time refining one's expressions, because one's opponents are just waiting to jump on the slightest infelicity or imprecision of wording. Just like you did, Hoff. They take that and run with it, instead of dealing with the substance. Just like you did, Hoff.

Mr. Yourdon, I don't know about you, but when I get a "critique" like this of something I've written, it's as good as applause. :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

Oops. I had better correct my imprecision. :-) He did say that about "dearth" but his point was this: (1) there is no public perception that there's any expertise, which leads many to dismiss the council; (2) there is widespread "dearth" of technical expertise in decision making capacities.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

Sorry, Lane, but he spent the first three paragraphs of his "Letter" undermining the technical experience, in particular of the President's Council.

Whether he stated "absolutes" or not, there is no question of the impression he wished to convey.

It took me approximately 15 minutes of research to find he was wrong. An effort I would expect before issuing this sort of criticism.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

I would imagine those folks still under water, or living in Taiwan, would not be very interested in this debate. I bet they would be a whole lot more concerned about where they will be getting the next few gallons of potable water...72 hours + no water = you die. All the intelligent debate in the world does not change that.72 hours + no water = you die. Meanwhile, officials there continue to reassure and tell folks everything is ok, please don't panic. I agree, don't panic, prepare. Quit wasting time defending your laziness. Please prepare to take care of yourself and your family...please. At least put away a few gallons of water, eh?

-- Tim Castleman (aztc@earthlink.net), September 21, 1999.

Three paragraphs doesn't seem unfair.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 21, 1999.

Poor Hoff.

Too ignorant to prepare.

Thinks "Pointy Haired Manager" is synonymous with "software professional".

Begrudges Ed for writing a book outlining the dangers of y2k and then giving it away for free on his open-to-the-public website.

Doesn't understand that the lack of sky high programmer rates and the abundance for lawyers is a bad sign not a good one.

Never comprehended the "if it takes an hour driving at 60 mph to get to the airport, how fast do I have to drive to make my plane if a traffic jam causes me to drive the first half at 30 mph?" tautology.

Believes Greenspan's rhetoric, derivative funds, speculative bubbles, fractional reserve banking, and fiat currencies have no down side.

Insinuates that the Lucent debacle was No Big Deal, since even though they couldn't fix the problem in "oh, three or four weeks", they could restore an older version of the software - even though no such safety net exists for y2k, and the interconnected complexity makes it incomparable from the start.

Looks like the Hoff Credibility Index has bottomed out. But at least he didn't call SAP a sliver bullet again.

-- a (a@a.a), September 21, 1999.

Hoff,

Two questions.

#1. Can you provide a link to your resume or other technical background info that qualifies you as an "expert" and also might help me to weigh your opinions and assumptions and speculation against Mr. Yourdon?

#2. Why are you here?

Mike

==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

Keen ad hominem, Hoff. Nice straw men, too. For example, Yourdon didn't say there weren't any computer specialists involved with the President's council. He said that the impression is that "most of the decision makers in government and private industry would not recognize a computer if they fell over one."

Lane Core, what is a straw man? and you exagerate, I think almost everyone can recognize a computer these days.

That certainly is my impression. Citing a few exceptions in a list does not necessarily apply to "most of the decision makers in government and private industry". But, you knew that, didn't you?

Hoff knew what? That isyour impression? What was the reason for that statement?

Yourdon whipped that essay out right quick. Considering that, it is a magnificent effort. But I have found that it is usually a mistake to whip something out quickly:

I find that a concession on your part as to the validity of Hoff's "Response".

it is worthwhile to spend a great deal of time refining one's expressions, because one's opponents are just waiting to jump on the slightest infelicity or imprecision of wording. Just like you did, Hoff.

I believe it is part of who Ed is to write about things he has has thoughts on, be it Greenspan or an effort to travel from point A to point B.

They take that and run with it, instead of dealing with the substance. Just like you did, Hoff.

Ed did ask for a critique and got what he asked for. He did not ask for only those which agreed with him. Mr. Yourdon, I don't know about you, but when I get a "critique" like this of something I've written, it's as good as applause. :-)

I am sure Ed has his own personal reaction to the post. Actually I believe Ed is perfectly able to "defend" anything he writes.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 21, 1999.

'a'

Thinks "Pointy Haired Manager" is synonymous with "software professional".

'a', take the time to read the bio's. Then talk about "Pointy Haired Manager's". Reality, 'a'; life is not a Dilbert cartoon.

Begrudges Ed for writing a book outlining the dangers of y2k and then giving it away for free on his open-to-the-public website.

Nope. Not the books. Or the videos. Or the "Y2k WebMall". Or the MLM. Don't "begrudge" him anything. In fact, stated such. Just think it has a direct impact on his "credibility" as an "IT expert" commenting on Y2k.

Insinuates that the Lucent debacle was No Big Deal, since even though they couldn't fix the problem in "oh, three or four weeks", they could restore an older version of the software - even though no such safety net exists for y2k, and the interconnected complexity makes it incomparable from the start.

Please detail how the myriad of possible causes of failure in the MCI-Lucent story translates in any way to errors that could occur because lines of code error on processing dates in 2000. Maybe you can do a better job at this than Steve Heller.

Michael Taylor:

I've answered these questions multiple times. If you're that interested, look them up.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

Greenspan states it is "beginning of wisdom in thinking about the Y2K problem to recognize that failures and breakdowns in mechanical and electronic systems are a normal part of our everyday life", not that this is where wisdom ends.

The Greenspan Credibility index went up two notches here. Apparently, he has a much firmer grasp of IT reality than you, the "expert" with "30+ years of experience".

1. Hoff, stop talking nonsense. You are laughed at when you suggest Yourdon doesn't grasp "IT reality" compared to Greenspan. In the context of software development and metrics, Greenspan is speaking as an amateur, whereas it is the one area where Yourdon is a total bad- ass.

2. If you are going to question Yourdon's motives, you should at least be fair and question Greenspan's. It sounds like you've already made your decision not to. Hoff, think for a moment how much motivation Greenspan would have to make the assurances he made, no matter what the reality is.

-- Wingman (-@-.-), September 21, 1999.

Thank you, Hoff, for an interesting post. I think Ed Yourdon is a savvy businessman. He identified a market for Y2K information and, in the finest American tradition, he entered the marketplace.

As Hoff notes, his business activities, however, create an inherent conflict of interest with objective reporting on the Y2K issue. How is this different than the NERC? According to forum regulars, the NERC has a vested interest in positive reporting. The same claim can be made about Ed Yourdon and negative reporting.

Hoff's post captures some of Yourdon's "spin" on the Greenspan statement. Admittedly, Yourdon has been far more balanced than say, Y2Knewswire. As Yourdon engages in reading the "tea leaves" of Greenspan's statement, however, I sense some bias.

Perhaps the most salient point of Hoff's statement is the accurate depiction of a very busy year in the IT world. The billions of dollars spent on remediation have created vast changes. Despite this gut-wrenching effort, we have not experienced the wide spread failures often predicted. The failures thus far have also not had the oft speculated "domino effect."

Maybe the IT folks are getting it right? Maybe they are having problems, but the interconnectivity has been overestimated? Maybe the "metrics" guys were just wrong about remediation?

I don't know, but Yourdon's interpretation of the Greenspan statement seems a bit stretched. By the way, my car was built by a group of "unknown" engineers. Seems to work fine.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), September 21, 1999.

Thanks for the clarification Hoff. If anything, you've simply strengthened my resolve to simply disregard everything your write.

However, as to question #2.

Quick clarification.

This is not csy2k, this is a board with a much different agenda which, in fact, was started by Mr. Yourdon. You're spinning your wheels here, Hoff, in territory where you need to back up your point of view much harder (because you are in the minority) if you want to change minds. Will you change minds? Not by posting something like this.

By the way, as I stated before, I don't care nor do I put any weight in what you think.

Mike

===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

Hoff & Ken: Please continue to spout your pollyanna nonsense for all to see. Do you realize how stupid you both sound?

Hoff: "Greenspan knows more about software than Ed Yourdon" Uh, Hoff, Yourdon WROTE THE BOOK on software. Greenspan is a BANKING SHILL. Do you understand this? Guess not...

Decker: "Yourdon is a savvy businessman" Ken, how many "savvy businessmen" do you know that give their books away for free? For someone who claims to be an economist, you sure don't know much about commerce.

You two crack me up. I had almost decided to drop off this forum but reading these fascinating new accounts of your idiocy keeps me coming back for more. Why don't you get together with Flint and start a thread on how Ed Yourdon, Paul Milne and 'a' are all the same person. LOL

-- a (a@a.a), September 21, 1999.

Hoff,
Thanks for taking to the time to write your post above. I lurk here alot. I like to hear *all sides* of the debate. It helps me to decide what to do. I have done quite a bit of 'prepping', just because it seems easy and cheap to have some fuel, food, and water on hand (and I wanted to live in the country anyway). I do this even though I think the probability of my needing these things is remote. I sleep better for having done it, - knowing that I won't be a burden or threat my neighbor if things get rough. I was pleased to read the resumes' of the people you listed. I am doing my best to keep my balance, to prepare to move ahead with my life. If y2K turns out to be a 2 or a 9, I'll just do my best to roll with the punches. I've been trying not to get too emotionally invested in thinking I *know* what will happen at the rolloever. It makes it harder to land on your feet.

Berry

-- Berry Picker (BerryPicking@yahoo.com), September 21, 1999.

Michael Taylor

I have no intention of "changing minds". It long ago became abundantly clear that most so-called "regulars" have firmly formed their conclusions, and base their acceptance of information on those conclusions.

Your post serves to illuminate those characteristics quite nicely.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

So, Hoffy, you government shill, what the hell are you doing here anyway?

-- Wondering (wondering@curious.com), September 21, 1999.

Koshky handed out the assignments. I drew the short straw.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

"Please detail how the myriad of possible causes of failure in the MCI-Lucent story translates in any way to errors that could occur because lines of code error on processing dates in 2000. Maybe you can do a better job at this than Steve Heller."

Suppose we could ask all the Telcos why they spent so much on the 2000 problem.

Just occurred to me that Hoff doesn't get it.

I mean, just doesn't GI.

a, NO, you may not leave the forum.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 21, 1999.

OK then, lisa, maybe you can.

What does the amount of meoney spent have to do with a comparison of the severity of errors?

How can you compare software implementation errors, where virually anything can go wrong, including such things as the installation process itself, load handling, etc., with errors resulting when a subset of the lines of code cannot process dates in the year 2000?

Can the software suddenly become "uninstalled"?

Will the date statements "fail" because they are processed more?

Do you really believe the "cause" of errors occurring on the date change will be "unknown"?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

Hoffy, it's obvious you can't give your real reasons for being here. I hope the government is paying you for your efforts.

-- Wondering (wondering@curious.com), September 21, 1999.

Hoffmeister, your shilling days are numbered! Only 101 shilling days left for you!

-- Tick Tock (ticktock@timeflies.com), September 21, 1999.

Wonder if Hoffy is part of the K-team? its the first authority he quotes.

Amazable!

Diane

Koskinen And *More* Media Y2K Perception Management...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001RBY

(And check out another Advisory team).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 21, 1999.

Another puff job from one of our resident ostriches, the ol' Hoffmeister. How do you keep from bumping into things when you walk around with a blindfold on all day, Hoff?

The errors introduced by code remediation are simply not the same as what's going to happen in real time following December 31, 1999. You're confusing oranges with apples but that's what happens when you look at things with your eyes shut.

Also, you act as if the U.S. banks operate in a totally isolated situation, completely independent of data from overseas, where the banks in many, many countries are nowhere near compliant, according to several gov't analyses. It won't matter if every single one of our banks gets 100% compliant (fat chance!), they still have to share data with other banks in other countries or block off that data to protect their own data. And if that data is date formatted correctly but otherwise corrupt or incorrect, it throws an enormous monkey wrench into our banking system, a monkey wrench that grows larger exponentially each time that bad data is reprocessed. Every banker I've discussed this with verifies this. Can you disprove it? Can anyone?

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 21, 1999.

Cody Varian

The errors introduced by code remediation are simply not the same as what's going to happen in real time following December 31, 1999. You're confusing oranges with apples but that's what happens when you look at things with your eyes shut.

You're actually right, Cody. It's more like comparing peas and watermelons. But keep those eyes and ears squeezed shut and keep repeating "it's going to be BAD, it's going to be BAD..."

Also, you act as if the U.S. banks operate in a totally isolated situation, completely independent of data from overseas, where the banks in many, many countries are nowhere near compliant, according to several gov't analyses. It won't matter if every single one of our banks gets 100% compliant (fat chance!), they still have to share data with other banks in other countries or block off that data to protect their own data. And if that data is date formatted correctly but otherwise corrupt or incorrect, it throws an enormous monkey wrench into our banking system, a monkey wrench that grows larger exponentially each time that bad data is reprocessed. Every banker I've discussed this with verifies this. Can you disprove it? Can anyone?

What I can say is that the banks here in the US are just as interconnected, if not more so, than with banks overseas.

What I can say is that somewhere over 90% of their systems have either been remediated and reimplemented, or replaced.

What I can say is that reimplementation or replacement has introduced large numbers of errors. Numbers of errors that at least match the rate of errors due to the date change.

And what I can say is that the system has not collapsed.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

Let me try to use words with less syllables, Hoff and maybe you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

On second thought, what's the point? Y2K obviously frightens you so much that you're simply blocking it out.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 21, 1999.

Hoff said:

And what I can say is that the system has not collapsed.

Yes Hoff and keep in mind that the banks have had about three years to accomplish this. On 010100, they will have about three hours to three days to unsort everything or else things start going to hell in a handbasket.

But keep those eyes and ears squeezed shut and keep repeating "it's NOT going to be bad, it's NOT going to be bad..."

-- a (a@a.a), September 21, 1999.

Dang! Where are my loaner pair of ruby slippers? Size... Hoffy.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 21, 1999.

'a'

Hmm. Well 'a', using a 3 year window and 90% yielded an estimated error rate of .964375 per month-start, versus a .3675 error rate at date rollover.

BTW, I know it's tough, but at least try and be original.

Diane

Your contributions on this thread have been all I've come to expect.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

....and I used to think "As The World Turns" had drama.....I love this place!

-- don (mrmtgman@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

"...all I've come to expect."

Rude, but rest assured the feeling is more than mutual.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 21, 1999.

I'm sure, lisa. But are we mind-melding with Diane today?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

ohmigod - Hoff is Decker.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 21, 1999.

Wait - Stop - don't want any bad feelings w/Hoff.

I apologize for anything I may have said or may say in the future.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 21, 1999.

Humm. On second thought, perhaps I should throw those shoes at him! Eh, Lisa?

;-D

Hoffy... you have consistently been lowering my expectations for you, each time you post. So, clearly... we'll agree to disagree. Or not.

I responded to Ed... here... THAT was worth my time...

An Open Letter to Alan Greenspan (by Ed Yourdon)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Qky

See also...

Second draft of 'Open Letter to Alan Greenspan' (Ed Yourdon)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Qvk

A much better read, IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 21, 1999.

"a,"

Ed Yourdon wrote some books about software. To my knowledge, he has never managed a central bank. With all due respect to Yourdon, Alan Greenspan has access to information Yourdon does not including folks who software acumen equals (if not exceeds) that of Yourdon. I'll save issues like NSA data for another day.

As for his business savvy, perhaps you have heard of a "loss leader." Yourdon may have given away copies of his book, but he sold quite a few as well. He also used his Internet presence and book sales to spin off a MLM venture, videos, speaking engagements, etc. In retrospect, I'd say Yourdon's book "giveaway" was good business.

Now, I compliment Ed Yourdon on his business ventures. I simply suggest you hold him to the same "standard" you hold others. If the NERC cannot be trusted because of their "interests," why can Yourdon? Perhaps you should just admit the obvious. Since you agree with Ed, he "must" be telling the truth. Since you disagree with Hoff (and others) they "must" be lying.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), September 21, 1999.

Ken: I don't think that you or Hoff are intentionally lying. It is just my honest opinion that Ed Yourdon, Cory, BD, Milne and myself have a more accurate picture of how y2k will unfold than you two (and FTR, I doubt either of you are shills. I haven't ruled our reptiles though...).

For that matter, NERC and FAA may also not be "lying", but rather "deliberately misleading" as Flint says. But in their case, the buck stops with them. I don't really care what you and Hoff think, but a government agency or industry that the public depends on should be 100% up front with its owners and customers. Flint says they shouldn't. He says they should be amoral, which they are. Not good morals. Not bad morals. No morals.

-- a (a@a.a), September 21, 1999.

Hoffmeister:

Excellent rebuttal, essentially unanswered.

But by now I wonder why you treat most of these people as adults. It doesn't help anymore than does treating them as they deserve, and it's a lot less entertaining for the most part. Although answering mindless squalling with hard information is a form of dry humor with some real appeal. So on second thought, keep it up.

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

Hoffmeister: What proof have you for your assertion that the errors introduced by current code remediation are at least equal to the errors that will be caused by Y2K? And are you referring to worldwide errors or just U.S. banking errors?

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 21, 1999.

Interesting post, like to have the old stereoscopic "perspective" tested from time to time,just to see if it still works. Tunnel vision does get boring.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), September 21, 1999.

My Gawd, I am so con-fused! Lisa is Diane? Hoff is Decker? While on another thread, according to Flint, a lot of TB2000 posters are actually Paul Milne using multiple handles.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 21, 1999.

Flint, the good news is that your posts are actually getting shorter, which all of us appreciate. Unfortunately, they are also getting stupider.

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

RUOK:

On another thread, Amy claims I'm not even myself! Confusing indeed.

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

Actually, I'm Leska.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 21, 1999.

no Lisa... I'm Leska today!!! sheesh...

This thread has got to be one of the funniest ever produced and Lisa is right, Hoff doesn't GI.

**CLASSIFIED NOTICE*** Regulars, it is time to change your secret decoder ring. Please take pen and pencil in hand a ready yourself...

F2 G6 K9

That is all.

Mike

============== theresnoplacelikehome / theresnoplacelikehome / theresnoplacelikehome ===============

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

///

Here's an interesting twist on a theme:

///Hoff writes an open letter to Alan Greenspan.///

No groveling or drooling allowed.

Bibs available at the door.

///

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 21, 1999.

Hey. Cherri. "Hyperbole". Look it up.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

Now wait a minute, I thought Leska was Gayla! I'm so confused...

"Once I was arrested for walking in someone else's sleep." --- Steven Wright

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), September 21, 1999.

An error is an error is an error. Right?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

Flint, you call THAT an excellent rebuttal??? I had a higher opinion of what you had to say. Until now. I think the nicest thing about Hoffmeisters rebuttal is that it starts out 'ad hominem' and goes downhill from there.

Cherri you say: "Lane Core, what is a straw man? and you exagerate, I think almost everyone can recognize a computer these days."

Straw man would seem to me to be a scarecrow; IE. doesn't do anything phsyically, but sure as heck affects the animal it is aimed at. As for people recognizing a computer if they fell over one, NOPE. I hear people everyday that don't have a clue if they work with a fax machine, a PC, or a dumb terminal. They don't know what a server is compared to a mainframe. They want to have the Internet put on their PC. I speak with executives that don't know how to operate that little ($4,000) laptop that they carry around. All they know is to click on the pretty little Icons :) I could go on, but I'll stop right here.

Hoffmeister- first, what is your real name please?? Mine is Brent.

you say: "Please detail how the myriad of possible causes of failure in the MCI-Lucent story translates in any way to errors that could occur because lines of code error on processing dates in 2000. Maybe you can do a better job at this than Steve Heller."

You really don't get it, Hoffmeister. You don't actually believe that ANY big errors will cause ANYTHING to fail, do you. I almost feel sorry for you.

You say- "How can you compare software implementation errors, where virually anything can go wrong, including such things as the installation process itself, load handling, etc., with errors resulting when a subset of the lines of code cannot process dates in the year 2000? "

The same way that Greenspan can compare an average workday's worth of error's and our ability to plod through these errors to January 1st, 2000; the biggest single computer error ever.

"Can the software suddenly become "uninstalled"?" Probably not, but the software could become deleted real fast. Or the computer might "lose it". or some other equally wierd, strange reason that a programmer never dreamed of might happen. In which case I page him/her.....oopps, not working. Hmmm, better wait untill tomorrow, when that get's fixed.

Do you really believe the "cause" of errors occurring on the date change will be "unknown"?"

Most likely not. Each and every one will still have to be researched and have this determined tho. As far as FOF goes, how's this: Oh, it'll be fixable in 3 days because we KNOW what caused it. HUH???? what about the past three years??? been on a long coffee break????

This has been KNOWN about for 3 decades. When did most of the work start?????? The point of no-return was passed some time ago. I don't care when that exact point was. I simply accept the fact that there will be failures.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), September 21, 1999.

Well, Brent, what do we have:

Hoffmeister- first, what is your real name please?? Mine is Brent.

You can call me Al, if it makes you feel better.

you say: "Please detail how the myriad of possible causes of failure in the MCI-Lucent story translates in any way to errors that could occur because lines of code error on processing dates in 2000. Maybe you can do a better job at this than Steve Heller."

You really don't get it, Hoffmeister. You don't actually believe that ANY big errors will cause ANYTHING to fail, do you. I almost feel sorry for you.

Save your pity. Obviously, you couldn't do it either. That's OK, cause I seriously don't think it can be done.

You say- "How can you compare software implementation errors, where virually anything can go wrong, including such things as the installation process itself, load handling, etc., with errors resulting when a subset of the lines of code cannot process dates in the year 2000? "

The same way that Greenspan can compare an average workday's worth of error's and our ability to plod through these errors to January 1st, 2000; the biggest single computer error ever.

No, they are not the same thing. And what I'm talking about are not the average work day errors.

"Can the software suddenly become "uninstalled"?" Probably not, but the software could become deleted real fast. Or the computer might "lose it". or some other equally wierd, strange reason that a programmer never dreamed of might happen. In which case I page him/her.....oopps, not working. Hmmm, better wait untill tomorrow, when that get's fixed.

I assume you speak from experience; ie, these things have happened, yes? Funny, missed the "systemic collapse" followon.

Do you really believe the "cause" of errors occurring on the date change will be "unknown"?"

Most likely not. Each and every one will still have to be researched and have this determined tho. As far as FOF goes, how's this: Oh, it'll be fixable in 3 days because we KNOW what caused it. HUH???? what about the past three years??? been on a long coffee break????

FOF is basically how things work today. What I have attempted to show is that the number of errors that can be expected is at or very close to a level we have already experienced. And that as a class of errors, Y2k errors are essentially trivial, compared to the range of errors that are encountered during implementations.

This has been KNOWN about for 3 decades. When did most of the work start?????? The point of no-return was passed some time ago. I don't care when that exact point was. I simply accept the fact that there will be failures.

As do I. Failures happen every day; I deal with them. Just see absolutely no evidence that these failures at the date change will cause any sort of collapse.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

Try again.

Hoffmeister- first, what is your real name please?? Mine is Brent.

You can call me Al, if it makes you feel better.

you say: "Please detail how the myriad of possible causes of failure in the MCI-Lucent story translates in any way to errors that could occur because lines of code error on processing dates in 2000. Maybe you can do a better job at this than Steve Heller."

You really don't get it, Hoffmeister. You don't actually believe that ANY big errors will cause ANYTHING to fail, do you. I almost feel sorry for you.

Save your pity. Obviously, you couldn't do it either. That's OK, cause I seriously don't think it can be done.

You say- "How can you compare software implementation errors, where virually anything can go wrong, including such things as the installation process itself, load handling, etc., with errors resulting when a subset of the lines of code cannot process dates in the year 2000? "

The same way that Greenspan can compare an average workday's worth of error's and our ability to plod through these errors to January 1st, 2000; the biggest single computer error ever.

No, they are not the same thing. And what I'm talking about are not the average work day errors.

"Can the software suddenly become "uninstalled"?" Probably not, but the software could become deleted real fast. Or the computer might "lose it". or some other equally wierd, strange reason that a programmer never dreamed of might happen. In which case I page him/her.....oopps, not working. Hmmm, better wait untill tomorrow, when that get's fixed.

I assume you speak from experience; ie, these things have happened, yes? Funny, missed the "systemic collapse" followon.

Do you really believe the "cause" of errors occurring on the date change will be "unknown"?"

Most likely not. Each and every one will still have to be researched and have this determined tho. As far as FOF goes, how's this: Oh, it'll be fixable in 3 days because we KNOW what caused it. HUH???? what about the past three years??? been on a long coffee break????

FOF is basically how things work today. What I have attempted to show is that the number of errors that can be expected is at or very close to a level we have already experienced. And that as a class of errors, Y2k errors are essentially trivial, compared to the range of errors that are encountered during implementations.

This has been KNOWN about for 3 decades. When did most of the work start?????? The point of no-return was passed some time ago. I don't care when that exact point was. I simply accept the fact that there will be failures.

As do I. Failures happen every day; I deal with them. Just see absolutely no evidence that these failures at the date change will cause any sort of collapse.



-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

I really wonder why so much time is being spent discussing Greenspan's speech. Anyone who has observed Greenspan knows that his speeches rarely provide any specific information. They also know that he is not going to say anything which could harm investors confidence during this critical period. What else could he do? Its his job to appear optismistic.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

But Sir Decker,

If Greenspan's job is to run and manage the Central Bank (for the good of the Clintons' approval ratings, the stock market, and the general banks - what leads you to believe that he is reporting honestly and sincerely anything about the degree of significant threats of future disruptions to those issues?

Is he (Greenspan) not even more subject to "slight" bits of self-interest even greater than Yourdon, you, or I?

Also, what leads you to believe that any of the "experts" gathered have ever "produced" anything? I see nothing but Democratic Flacks using the public's money and career politicans - all Democratic and (one lone) Republican. We have seen absolutely that the Democrats have accepted lies, and made bold lies during the impeachment, when supposedly htey were sworn to uphold justice; now, they are "deciding" on a future of events they are simply not capable of understanding.

Am I perhaps wrong in deciding that career politicans and "fund administrations" are incapable of understanding how a program fails?

Bluntly - YES. They have not ever tested programs, they have never loaded trucks, or run an automated paper machine or seen a control system. Bluntly, they are proclaiming "what they fervently wish will happen" based on their ignorance of the production systems.

Is Greenspan any different? Slightly - at least has programmed. But as a "IT" programmer, not a program tester, not a program user, not a customer held hostage by a state bureacrat looking at a blank screen - wating for a reply that will never come, he has never "used" the systems he programmed many dozen years ago.

So he too does not have the experience needed to forecast this series of events. Blunt fact, perhaps.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 21, 1999.

Just who are you referring to in the above, Robert?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

So Hoff, it takes you three tries to get an HTML italics command right, but you're to have us believe that there will be no significant problems during y2k rollover? This is comedy, right?

-- a (a@a.a), September 21, 1999.

'a', you are truly amazing.

Able to see Y2k connections at every turn!

Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a contrail!

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

watch out for that byrd dropping!

-- (it'sahoffmeister@flying.overhead), September 21, 1999.

I was actually hoping to write a serious response to Hoffmeister's critique this morning, but the day ended up being spent doing "real" work instead.

When I checked back this evening, I was overwhelmed by the flame-war barrage going back and forth between so many people. It's great reading, and actually hilarious at times ... but at this point, does anyone actually care how it started, and who said what to whom? If y'all haven't killed each off by now, and left an empty battlefield, I'll see if I can write something later this evening -- but I won't be able to address the dozens of commentaries from other people after the initial message from Hoffmeister.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 21, 1999.

> You can call me Al, if it makes you feel better.

Hi Al :) I like being personal, because the web/net is so IMpersonal. I am a (somewhat) young guy, so I am very used to handles/nicks, but I figure that for something this important it's best to be upfront andtruthfull about the small things.

I don't want to flame away or engage in ad hominem attacks here. What I really, *REALLY* am looking for is a reason to go out and live a little right now, instead of buying more food. Now I know that I probably should be more prepared, but I want to find something good about the whole Y2K thing. I am hoping that you can show me the flaw in my thinking.

> Save your pity. Obviously, you couldn't do it either. That's OK, > cause I seriously don't think it can be done.

I'm not wasting my pity...I don't feel any for those not prepared. Do you seriously think that every failure in history has been able to be explained even after the fact. I want to be able to understand you, so I will attempt to paraphrase what you are saying into what I think you are saying: "A Y2K failure cannot happen unless it is explained exactly how it is possible, in full detail." is that correct??

> No, they are not the same thing. And what I'm talking about are not > the average work day errors.

Why is this specific error (y2k) NOT a big deal?? You are saying that it is LESS than the average work day errors??

> I assume you speak from experience; ie, these things have happened, > yes? Funny, missed the "systemic collapse" followon.

Yep :( ---> I work at a help desk for a major company. I have to take calls from all over the U.S. and, late at night, even from Asia. I also have to then page someone from a large list if the call is about something critical. A systemic collapse might *begin* as such: There would have to be several critical failures on the mainframe and/or network side. All these come in within a 30 minute time-frame and are Y2K caused. Then the pager companies (2 for most people in this case) are not working. Or the phone company is working intermittantly. Or there is a Montreal style power outage caused by a combination of some Y2K related failures and ice/snow/wild rabbits (whatever :) Or one of the critical people needed can't drive in because of snow and his laptop is down. (snowplows don't make it out there because they are.....

SO, I cannot contact ANYONE on the list about several business critical problems. Now the brown fecal matter impacts the air-circulation device with a high velocity, roughly perpendicular to the plane of travel of said device. How many problems will start from these "few" that are NOT related to Y2K ???

Try multipling this by the World. Now you have what Jan 1, 2000 *might* bring.

All I want to know is if that is possible. In your opinion.

> FOF is basically how things work today. What I have attempted to > show is that the number of errors that can be expected is at or > very close to a level we have already experienced. And that as a > class of errors, Y2k errors are essentially trivial, compared to the > range of errors that are encountered during implementations.

Ummm, OK. This is the first that I have heard of these errors being "Trivial". Please let me know where I can find the facts of such info. That would definetly let me relax some. (how can we/they KNOW that ALL errors have been found until at least March??)

> As do I. Failures happen every day; I deal with them. Just see > absolutely no evidence that these failures at the date change will > cause any sort of collapse.

Yes, they do happen every day. BUT they are *only* computer or network related. What happens if Y2K causes errors outside of our little cubicals??

I agree that there is "no evidence that these failures at the date change will cause any sort of collapse." However, that is simply because we have NEVER had an event of this magnitude happen at the same time all over the world (within 24 hours in this case-you know what I mean, Da ?)

After all, Greespan has said that very thing.

I am going to stop here as...I have an hour-and-a half drive home...my relif just got here, and I HOPE that the above even begins to make some sense as: I wrote it in the middle of paging two people and mollifing a third. The first person I paged passed it off to the second. When I talked to the second person he/she asked if the first person had looked at it. -there's ANOTHER thing to add to the above problems list. 4> person paged is drunk, or not willing to work because it is probably a Y2K problem.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), September 21, 1999.

Oooohhhh baby - this thread's a keeper!

Some of you want Hoff to be wrong sooooo badly. Maybe we can re-post this thread in Jan/Feb 2000 and see who is eating the humble pie.

To EY: if you have not already done so, a reply to Hoff would make interesting reading.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

Johnny- Nope :) I want Hoffmeister to be RIGHT. Because then I can feel better NOW instead of waiting another tension-filled 101 days....

p.s. I am still here (work) because the original guy with problem called back-the first two people couldn't help him. Now I am connecting him with someone in his OWN company....

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), September 22, 1999.

Brent - I do not doubt that you want Hoff to be right, but there are *some* others on the forum who would rather eat squirrel sh*t than see Hoff's contentions (the bugs won't be unmanageable in number etc.) proven correct. Perhaps it is because they see Hoff as a part of this Yuppie SUV-driving morally decaying society that just deserves some kind of come-uppance. Who knows....

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

What an intense waste of time....

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

But aren't all soap operas a waste of time.....

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Johnny: you're strange.

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

a - e-mail me (genuine suggestion)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Folks,

Sorry to break this thread of magnificent insults and flames, but I've started a new thread here that identifies a response, entitled Hoffmeister vs. Yourdon: Point/Counterpoint re my letter to Greenspan that I've posted to the esteemed Mr. Hoffmeister on my web site.

Cheers,

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 22, 1999.

"a,"

You pick your experts, I'll pick mine. In a 100 days, we'll compare notes. In the mean time, consider my question (the one you dodged.) Yourdon has a direct financial interest in Y2K preparation activities. Does this create a conflict of interest?

Mr. Cook,

Your rabid bias against Democrats seems to warp your logic. As you may know, the Administration has little sway over the Federal Reserve. One conservative complaint about the Fed is that they are "too independent." As a central banker, Greenspan does have a vested interest... in the banking system. I know some people might want to blame Greenspan for everything (including Hurrricane Floyd). In reality, Greenspan is not responsible for the speculative bubble in the equity markets, the trade deficit or the low savings rate.

You can make the assertion Greenspan is "covering" for the financial services sector on Y2K... but I expect some proof. Instead, we have reports from regulatory agencies like the FDIC that confirm a relatively high state of readiness in the sector. In fact, most of the data currently available supports the notion we will "survive" Y2K. The only counter-theory is "they are all lying."

Speaking of data, I am still waiting for a definitive list of software that is 1) currently in use and 2) will absolutely fail on rollover.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), September 22, 1999.

But Sir Declker, look more closely at what was done in the final months of the 92 election: August, September, and October. Look at what was repeated in each of the small cycles later to prevent other "politically incorrect" problems in the stock market at several steps: compare the timing of each interst rate drop with the political news.

I grant that the national news media is more cuplable than Greenspan directly. But it takes many allies, including Greenspan, who was specifically and deliberately invited as "first guest" in the Clintons' first State of the Union address, sitting immediately next to Hillary. That was no coincidence.

Financial failure? Please re-review my previous comments.

I've never believed that the financial industry (as a whole) would catastrophically - I've always been more concerned about the "processes" going on invisibily in tens of millions of businesses nationally and worldwide who cannot continue in the face of otehr disruptions: including but not limited to transporation, JIT parts, JIT sales, water, power, heat, telephones, natural gas, oil, chemicals, shipping, pumping, receiving, distreibuting, paying, and so on and so forth.

BANKS themselves are probably okay - as long as they too are not disrupted by anything else. ITS THE "ANYTHING ELSE" that will (momentarily and catastrophically) stop the financial industry. Lke the failed satellite last year, the NJ flood this year, the NC and VA floods, the power failure in SFO, the MCI failure, or other "point" failuires that prevent transactions from getting entered, getting transmitted, or getting processed at the other end, at this end, or anywhere in the middle.

While the insurance industry is questionable in parts as far as actual remediation goes, the financial industry is probably okay. maybe the securities industry too - as long as both could remain independent from evrything else. But they can't. And like the Wachovia VP said, "if power goes out, we will just have to wait tillit comes back on......"

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 22, 1999.

Hoff,

Brilliantly put.

Doomers,

Typical responses. Fear is gone. The meme is dead. The public is both smarter than you gave them credit (another 'under-estimation') and smarter than you. They truly 'Get It.'

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 23, 1999.