Counterpoint: Response for Mr Yourdongreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Mr. Yourdon:
First, thank you for your response.
To answer some questions you raised, along with others, as to who I am, the level of my experience, etc:
My Experience
Currently, I am an SAP consultant. SAP, for those unfamiliar, is a large ERP software package that has been installed at a large number of corporations. The last count I saw was over 20,000 installations. For more information on SAP, see here:
www.sap.com.Anyway, SAP has been a large part of many corporation's Y2k strategy. SAP can and is installed to replace the large, legacy enterprise systems that can be a real problem to modify and fix for Y2k.
I've been working with SAP since 1993, and working as a consultant since 1995. I've worked with 9 different corporations in that time, either on projects or providing training. Most are household names.
Prior to SAP, I was a systems programmer and systems engineer. I've worked with PC's since they were just PC's (no hard drives). I've done systems programming on IBM midrange systems (Series/1, AS/400), supporting a network of over 2000 remote locations. I've also done work on mainframes, supporting and developing application development tools, most notably with an application generator called TELON. In all, I have over 17 years worth of IT/IS experience with some of the largest corporations in the US.
Anonymous?
Yes, I post anonymously, as Hoffmeister. There are a number of reasons for this.
- Although I have a level of expertise, even name recognition, within my area, this would not translate to the general population.
- I decided that I would not attempt to use whatever level of exposure generated by my postings to further my career, or ventures. Probably not much chance of that, anyway, but it was a decision I made.
- As most are aware, along about 1997, corporations, for good or bad, began requiring the signing of non-disclosure agreements regarding Y2k. As a consultant or contractor, I am typically in a fairly precarious position at any given time. Most projects like to offload the expense as soon as possible. While I felt it important to provide information regarding Y2k, I also do not need to give any reason for my clients to question my confidentiality.
- Regarding 3), there are ample examples on USENET, particularly c.s.y2k, where the "discussions" have led to just this type of activity; contacting employers, etc.
In essence, though my opinions about Y2k and IT have been formed from my experience, the arguments I make typically are not of the type that rely solely on personal information. Where they do, I expect others to treat the information in much the same manner as I treat "anonymous" postings.
Why Bother?
Why do I bother with Y2k? In a nutshell, I got pissed off.
Working with corporations, I had seen firsthand what was being done for Y2k. And I didn't have any real fears. But last summer (1998), my brother stumbled onto Gary North's site, and got scared shitless. After talking to him, I started checking out some of the internet sites. And literally could not believe the amount of misinformation thrown around as facts regarding IT systems.
And worst of all, the information was being spewed by people who claimed expertise.
This is what pissed me off. Folks, I could be the very best "doomer" around. I could spin tales and horror stories of projects and systems that would make it seem nothing could ever be done. I could throw "mystical" terms around to make your head spin.
In short, I could use my experience to generate an enormous amount of FUD.
But, that's not the point. At least, it's not the point to me.
People, in my profession, were, for whatever reason, intentionally using their expertise to scare the less technically knowledgeable.
And, I felt the need to correct this misinformation. If someone is truly looking to research Y2k, they shouldn't be subjected to intentionally misleading and false information, that stands uncorrected.
Response
Your response is available on-line
here.Due to space limitations, I won't include the full text of your response here, but the beginning of each block.
As you may recall from my letter, I expressed concern about "the dearth of technical computer expertise in the inner circle of federal decision-makers." I stand by that comment. I mentioned the President's Council within the same paragraph, and perhaps that's who you thought I was referring to..Mr. Yourdon, you may attempt to qualify these paragraphs as you see fit. However, any reasonable person reading your words would make the connection that you were, in fact, speaking of the President's Council. The only group you identify is the President's Council. If you now wish to qualify these statements, fine by me.
As for the President's Council itself, you may recall that I wrote, "I assume that the other members of the President's Council are competent, successful, and perhaps even brilliant in their own field; but many of us who follow the Y2K field closely have the terrifying impression that most of the decision makers in government and private industry would not recognize a computer if they fell over one." In hindsight, it was unnecessary and inappropriate for me to use such hyperbole when describing the computer expertise of the decision makers in government and industry, but in any case, you'll see that the comment was not aimed at the President's Council. But let's pursue your point a little further: suppose my assumption was wrong, and that the President's Council is the inner circle of decision makers. I looked through the list this morning, and noted that there were 13 individuals whose title is CIO. If my arithmetic is correct, that represents 28.26% of the overall council. I suppose we can all draw our own conclusions as to whether that is a sufficient representation of technical expertise; I'll acknowledge the point that perhaps I should have done the research and provided the statistics so that the reader (and Mr. Greenspan, to whom my letter was directed) could draw their own conclusions.
Again, it is far from clear that your original statements were not aimed at the President's Council. That you now qualify these statements is perhaps admirable; nonetheless, as stated above, there is no doubt in my mind the impression you wished to convey in the original posting.
As for percentage of CIO's. You need to make your points consistent. Two paragraphs down, you then go on to state that Y2k also demands the attention of "field of economics, international politics, etc." It seems, sir, that you are in essence describing the very make-up of the Council, while criticizing it for its make-up.
As for academic minds. Your quote describes a "complex management challenge". Y2k has never been a complex technical challenge; the "cure", if you will, has always been fairly straightforward. At the risk of offending many, even within my own family, the last thing needed was the "academic" mindset of theoretical solutions. Y2k required in essence a "grunt" level effort. And while the academic world does indeed possess some of the greatest minds, it is at least my experience that they are usually quite divorced from the realities of business and corporate solutions.
Well, I have to admit that I find this to be a mind-boggling comment ... but let me try to approach it as calmly as possible. First of all, I used the example of the Federal government when it comes to budgets and schedules, because (a) the information was readily available, and also reasonably current with the publication of the $8.3 billion budget figure by the OMB, and (b) I assumed that such an example would be more relevant to Mr. Greenspan than the figures about any particular company in the private sector. In retrospect, perhaps I should have done the research to track down aggregate budget figures from a dozen of the largest banks in the U.S.; I think it would have supported the same point that I was trying to make, but perhaps Mr. Greenspan would be more interested in the behavior of banks than of the major Federal agencies
The GAO and OMB are reporting what is recorded as Y2k expense. The "pork-barrel" nature of government budgets seems somehow to surprise you. Their reports are not "laughable"; the attempt to extrapolate meaningful information on the state of Y2k from the government budget process, is.Using the rise in government estimates is "laughable" because, as I believe Flint pointed out, government budget processes are in no way a model for today's corporate budgets. Funding requests typically follow an old model, of requesting what you "think" you can get, then periodically requesting more.
I say "old" model, because this used to be typical of the corporate IT budget process, especially for new projects. In the past few years, however, at least on the projects I've been involved with, the trend has been to generate as accurate a budget estimate as possible from the start. Indeed, the emphasis is now on coming in under budget.
Corporations do not place SAP costs as Y2k Expense, because it is a new software implementation, and can be capitalized. Y2k remediation of systems is maintenance, and must be expensed. Even so, many SEC filings also include the cost of SAP installations in their Y2k section.
I made a point of emphasizing the word apparently for a reason. I do believe you understand how government funding works, and that given any other context, using the government budget process to extrapolate to corporations is truly laughable. That you would attempt to do so, I believe, reveals an attempt to make things look worse than they really are. Maybe the dozen top banks would have shown an increase in budgets; but it wouldn't be anywhere near the quite sensationalized version of a four times increase by the government, now would it?
Setting "early" deadline dates represents "foresight"? Really? Is that what you're suggesting?!? Well, it's actually a familiar practice in software project management, with one major exception in the Y2K field: the so-called "early" deadline dates were publicly pronounced with great fanfare, unlike the practice that one sees on many internal projects.
Yes, you paint a truly "Dilbertesque" view of corporate projects.Fortunately, the model you present has little to do current reality.
But taking your "model" as factual, how many of those 15-20% of projects that are "late", as you so frequently quote are "late" according to the "early" deadline date? It seems this would have quite a bearing on the outcome.But when all of this nonsense takes place within the boundaries of the corporation, the outside world typically doesn't see it. With Y2K, on the other hand, we've seen grandiose statements in SEC 10-Q statements, PR brochures, and statements from senior executives that all of the remediation (not just the mission-critical systems, but all of the systems) would be finished by December 31, 1998, which would leave time for a full year of testing. And what you're suggesting is that senior executives and project managers knew, all along, that there was no way they would meet that date...
Quite honestly, I don't think you, I, or anyone knows just how many corporations actually made these internal deadlines for remediation. The "full year for testing" means, quite obviously, they would not be "done" on Dec 31, 1998. And I would not expect many corporations to issue press releases on this date milestone.The government deadlines that have come and gone, have done so with an ever-increasing number and percentage of systems and agencies meeting them. I believe the last report is at 97%.
These figures go a very long way towards supporting my point. The 8th Quarterly Report from the OMB, which roughly coincides with the March 31st deadline, reported 79% of the systems completed. This matches quite nicely with previous metrics you so often quote. But subsequent reports, such as the 9th Quarterly Report, see a rise to 93%, and the latest being 97%. Again, demonstrating quite effectively the point I was making, that the use of previous metrics on software projects should not be applied to an assumed deadline of Dec 31, 1999, but to the deadlines set early, allowing a buffer.
As for Congressman Horn's report on "High-Impact" programs, his evaluation is not of the work done by the individual agencies, but is extended to include all agency partner's as well. A valid measure, to be sure, but has little or nothing to do with the work defined for the previous government deadlines, on systems they control and are responsible for.Well, if Mr. Greenspan "recognizes" that the non-electronic infrastructure is not at risk, he has done so without making any reference to it. It reminds me of the joke in which the theater manager says to Mrs. Lincoln, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" .
Mr. Greenspan, I believe, was speaking as part of a panel, which was composed of representatives from other areas, such as utilities. He is not misleading the public by addressing the portion of the problem he has been asked to address. He is recognizing that others have been asked to address these areas.
Ummm... why do you think we're experiencing this "massive upheaval"? It's because the modifications of existing systems, and the implementation of new systems, was necessitated by the very Y2K phenomenon we're talking about! Yes, I know that this activity leads to errors -- that's just the point! What on earth makes you think that the problems we've experienced thus far are all the problems that we'll experience? ..
The point being, Mr. Yourdon, that we have been and are experiencing this upheaval, with all the incumbent errors, and have not even approached a level of "systemic" collapse.
Nowhere did I say that these were "all" of the problems we'll encounter. The fact that these systems may still encounter Y2k errors is understood; but, they are generating large numbers of non-Y2k errors today.
The point being, Mr. Yourdon, that stripping away the hype, Y2k is about computer systems that generate errors. There is nothing "mystical" or "magical" about Y2k errors themselves. As you, I and anyone with any experience knows, computer systems generate errors today.
What makes Y2k unique, is the potential for a large number of simultaneous errors. The hypothesis being that the "system" will not be able to handle the number of errors generated.
I'll expand on this in a moment.
Yup -- you're right. So much for the optimistic statement that all of these problems can be found in a matter of minutes, or hours, or at most three days. Keep in mind that while the MCI/Lucent situation was obviously difficult and frustrating, it took place in an overall environment (i.e., the rest of the country) that was relatively stable. To use a current metaphor, imagine that they were trying to do their debugging in North Carolina, in the middle of Hurricane Floyd. Imagine debugging efforts like this going on in early January 2000, when the situation is likely to be complicated by dozens, if not hundreds of extraneous distractions and complications.Keep in mind as well, that as a class of errors, Y2k problems are essentially trivial.
The point here illustrates that errors due to software implementations span a wide range of possible failure points. It is not limited to just a "code" issue; it could be the installation process itself, for example.
The fact is, with this large range of possibilities, they were not able to even determine the cause of the failure.
Can you honestly state this could be the case on the date rollover?
Sorry, you lost me here. It may be "readily apparent" to you, but not to me. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the majority of Y2K-related errors will come from mistakes that have nothing to do with the date change (but why else, and where else, would the maintenance programmers be changing the code, huh?), and those errors are all surfacing now -- so that while it's disruptive now, the problems will all be fixed prior to January 1, 2000 -- after which we won't have any significant number of date-related errors. If that is indeed what you're trying to suggest, I'm afraid that I'll need a lot more detailed explanation in order to understand and accept it.
To expand.
As I mentioned above, stripping away the hype, Y2k is about computer systems generating errors. As a class of errors, they are essentially trivial, but errors are generated nonetheless.
The "threat", if you will, is that the number of errors generated will overwhelm our current ability to deal with them.
What I am saying, Mr. Yourdon, is that the error rates that have been and are being generated today, due to these software implementations and replacements, in total far outweigh the error rates that can be expected at the date rollover. And that the simultaneous error rates being experienced today approach or exceed the rate of errors that can be expected at the date rollover.
I won't repeat the post here. But since you asked for an explanation, please see the first posting of the "debate" with Steve Heller, available
here. Using the same sources you so often cite, I performed a relative comparison of errors generated through system replacement/modification, with errors that can be expected at the date rollover.Maybe I missed something here. If 90% of the systems have fixed or replaced their systems, what about the other 10%? Don't they matter? And while there may have been two rounds of audits, as well as some testing between individual banks and some of the central clearing-house systems, have we seen any evidence that there has been testing of the interfaces between the banks themselves? Even if they had done so, my earlier point remains: they might all be running remediated systems in production now, but they're doing it with vintage-1999 dates. By definition, nobody has run production systems with post-2000 dates; and whatever time-machine testing that has been carried out, using post-2000 dates, by individual banks, is not the same as the entire banking system running, in toto, in a post-2000 production mode.
And again, I am not referring in any way to date processing errors.
My point being again that the sheer number of errors generated by replacing/modifying 90% of banking systems, would dwarf the number of errors that can be expected due to the date rollover. These would affect interfaces, and in general all processing. Again, referencing the error rate comparisons. And that, even with these large error rates, the banking system is functioning quite well, and does not appear to be on the verge of any form of collapse.
Sigh... if you read the letter, you'll see that I acknowledge his point, but suggested that the ability of maintenance organizations to deal with those failures and breakdowns depend svery heavily of the quantitative value of MTBF and MTTR. I don't know if my explanation was too complicated for you to understand, but it seems to me that it would be more constructive for you to respond directly to that point rather than making snide remarks about who has the firmer grasp of IT reality.
No, your explanation was not too complicated. My main point above was to attempt to perform a comparison of error rates due to the date rollover, to what we have and are currently experiencing. Your points on MTBF and MTTR rest almost solely on the assumption that the overall error rate due to the date rollover will deteriorate the MTBF and MTTR. This obviously will not occur due solely to the nature of Y2k errors themselves. Again, my point being that we have and are experiencing error rates as high or higher than error rates at the date rollover, with no such catastrophic deterioration.
But the reluctance that I expressed in my letter had to do with voluntarily exposing myself to situations where the metaphorical airplane is breaking down, and where my life depends on the ability of the pilot and crew to respond to completely unexpected failures. Suppose you got on a plane, and the pilot came on the loudspeaker to say, "Hi folks, glad to have you on board. By the way, there's a good chance that we'll be flying through a Force-6 hurricane on this flight. You may have only heard of hurricane levels 1-5, but we're going to be the first to experience level-6. Chances are it will rip both wings off the plane -- but hey! We're ingenious! We're resourceful! We rise to every occasion!" I don't know about you, but I would get off the plane if I possibly could.
Well yes, I'd agree. But to this point, metaphorically speaking, the only ones on the loudspeaker proclaiming "Chances are it will rip both wings off the plane--" are people such as yourself, Gary North, etc. Most definitely not the pilots; more like protestors that either want to ground all aircraft, or people who just happen to be selling bus tickets to the same location. Sorry, but I'll stick with the pilots.
Yes, I have to admit that it's rather amusing that the invitation to testify before the Senate (not Congress) in a hearing on Y2K preparedness has given me some credentials as an "expert" in this area; actually, at least a few people on our Y2K forum voiced the opinion that while I might have some credentials in the software field, I had had no visible experience in the field of community preparedness before Y2K came along. As for my credibility as an IT expert on Y2K, everyone is allowed to form their own opinion. Without meaning to criticize or judge you, I'll simply observe that you haven't even shown me the courtesy of telling me your name, let alone your background or credentials for judging my expertise. My credentials and professional career in the computer field are pretty much an open book, much of which can be judged by the material on my web site, and I'm willing accept whatever judgment that IT professionals may have of me.
I have not questioned your experience or credentials; just the application of them.
To be honest, I have no knowledge of your actual credentials. The only time I remember running across your name was in using the KnowledgeWare product some time ago, which I believe included a flow-charting methodology that was at least partially named after you.
But again, my problem is not with your expertise; it's with your application of it.
I'm humble enough to acknowledge that this may turn out to be true. If so, I'm sure that you and others won't miss the opportunity to remind me. But for now, I think it would be more intellectually honest if you acknowledged that this is an opinion, rather than -- as the sentence currently reads -- a statement of factual truth.
I acknowledge that part of the above is opinion; part, quite obviously, is fact. I won't dredge up the quotes and statements made about previous potential system failures; I'm sure you're quite aware of them.I assume that you have to make a living, too, unless you're lucky enough to have a large inheritance. And since I have no idea of who you actually are, or where you actually live, I'll simply make the assumption that you live somewhere where the free-market, capitalistic style of economy prevails. Thus, you too "profit" from whatever it is you do, presumably because the marketplace believes that you are delivering "value" for whatever it is that you do. Mr. Greenspan also derives a profit from whatever it is that he does. So do the bankers, and the CEOs of companies, and just about everyone else. Did it ever occur to that most of the folks who are giving us the optimistic assurances about Y2K have a vested interest in continuing to "profit" by having us believe that everything will be okay?.
As I said, I don't begrudge anyone making a living.
No doubt, Mr. Greenspan and others have an interest in their business. But, everyone is aware of these interests. PR statements are just that; PR statements, and are identified as such.
I don't aim my criticism at people who have a lot to lose if Y2k turns out badly, because that includes everyone. And, these are the same people working to ensure that Y2k does not come out badly. Yes, they have a vested interest in seeing Y2k come out well. As do we all. Save, perhaps, for the truly fringe elements, such as Gary North and others, that feel they have a vested interest in seeing Y2k come out badly.
In essence, what you are saying is you misjudged the potential market. And I cannot truthfully say I'm sorry in that regard; in particular, the MLM venture. In truth, that episode truly disgusted me, especially after your statement that it was actually targeted towards single mothers, people on Social Security, Medicare, etc.But again, how you make your living is none of my business. What it does reflect upon, however, is your objectivity in applying your experience and credentials to Y2k.
When the insurance salesman calls, he's not pretending to be a doctor, telling me I probably have some disease, attempting to sell me insurance for the disease.
Likewise, if I were to go to the doctor, and find him prescribing some new, unknown drug, I don't expect him to be the owner of the drug company.
As is the case here. How you make your living is your business. But your statements simply cannot be taken as objective evaluations of the situation. You have a direct, vested interest in maintaining a level of fear, uncertainty and doubt; apparently more so now, since, as you say, the market has collapsed.
If I have helped to create uncertainty, I have nothing to apologize for. Anyone who feels that he can sell, or create, "certainty" about Y2K is a far larger and more dangerous snake-oil salesman than anything you could accuse me of. As for creating fear ... well, I do worry about that, and I try as hard as I can to express my thoughts and opinions in an objective fashion that encourages people to make up their own mind. If you talk about AIDS, or pollution, or nuclear accidents, or global warming, or the disappearance of the ozone layer, some people are going to be fearful; but I don't think that means we should stop talking about it, or only allow ourselves to express cheerful, optimistic statements. The reality is that there are some scary things that confront us, and we need to acknowledge them and cope with them in a responsible fashion. That's what I'm trying to do with Y2K; I may not have lived up to your standards, but I'm doing the best I can.
Yes, some issues create fear. And some attempt to capitalize on that fear. No one denies the right to do so. But that does not mean it should go unchallenged.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999
You know, sometimes all of you "experts" astound me. I swear, more aften than this forum is used as a stage to see who can come with up the longest, driest, most full-of-brovado postings with the express purspose of massaging your own overblown egos.What does this trite argument have to do with anything at all?
I'd tell you all where to go, but I'm a gentleman.
-- dan (dbuchner@logistics.calibersys.com), September 22, 1999.
This individual may be a prostitute.
-- TrustHim (ItComes@Soon.now), September 22, 1999.
Point... counterpoint... and up your pointless point...Executive Summary of 100 day report
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001RwkSenate ExEcSum conclusion...
[snip] However, the Committee has no data to suggest that the U. S. will experience nationwide social or economic collapse. Nonetheless, disruptions will occur and in some cases those disruptions will be significant. The international situation will certainly be more tumultuous.
There is is. In a nutshell.
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem
of the United States Senate
100 Day Report:
September 22, 1999
http:// www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/Table of Contents
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ toc_100days.pdfExecutive Summary
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ exec_sum_100days.pdfIntroduction
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/ 100dayrpt/introduction_100days.pdfSectors
Utilities
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ utilities_100days.pdfHealth Care
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/ 100dayrpt/healthcare_100days.pdfTelecommunications
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ telecomm_100days.pdfTransportation
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ transport_100days.pdfFinancial Services
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ finance_100days.pdfGeneral Government Services
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ gengovern_100days.pdfBusiness Services
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/ 100dayrpt/genbusiness_100days.pdfLitigation
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/ 100dayrpt/litigation_100days.pdfInternational Preparedness
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/ 100dayrpt/international_100days.pdfPersonal Preparedness
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/ 100dayrpt/personal_prepare_100days.pdfLooking Ahead
Beyond Y2K
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ beyondy2k_100days.pdfAppendices
Appendix I: Legislative Activities of the 106th Congress
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ apndixi_100days.pdfAppendix II: Y2K Letters
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ apndixii_100days.pdfAppendix III: Committee Hearings
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ apndixiii_100days.pdfAppendix IV: Y2K Related Websites
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ apndixiv_100days.pdfAppendix V: Acronyms used in this report
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/ apndixv_100days.pdf###
For the Adobe Acrobat PDF file challenged...
Whenever you have the complete internet PDF code of a document, you can send an e-mail to Adobe for an instant, automatic text conversion...
Send to: pdf2txt@adobe.com
The Subject line can be anything, but ONLY one pdf code can be in the body of the message... just the code... no message. Within a couple minutes Adobe will send you back a text coverted copy. Youll miss the graphics, but it allows the Adobe Acrobat challenged to see what its all about.
(If for any reason it doesnt convert, try resending or contact the Adobe web-site folks for help).
Try it, A SEPERATE E-MAIL, for each of the Senate 100 Days report pdf codes listed above.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.
Oh, you're a freakin' SAP type. Well, that explains your whole mindset then.No wonder you think that the problem can be solved in time. Now that I better understand your mental disability, I can more easily excuse your nonsense.
-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 22, 1999.
Wow, you just described Cory Hamasaki to a tee!Hoffmeister wrote:
"And worst of all, the information was being spewed by people who claimed expertise.
This is what pissed me off. Folks, I could be the very best "doomer" around. I could spin tales and horror stories of projects and systems that would make it seem nothing could ever be done. I could throw "mystical" terms around to make your head spin.
In short, I could use my experience to generate an enormous amount of FUD."
-- .....zzzzZZZzzzz..........zzzzZZZzzzz..... (sleeping_in_my_cube@work.now), September 22, 1999.
Yepper, Diane, we can both play at snippets.How about, for example:
Sensationalists continue to fuel rumors of massive Y2k failures and government conspiracies....
Hmmm. Maybe the .gov's have been hanging around here.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.
My Dear Sir.. As with anything written or thought of, there is always a bottom line to it. Even to your rather lenthy discourse. But it is the Honorable (?) Sen. Bennet who made the statement which is your "bottom" line. His words I believe in the report out today are to the fact..."The senate cannot be respondsible to every one in the public!" This was in respondse to needed amount of preprations needed to get through y2k!Mr. Hoffy! Sir, the "killers" of y2k WILL be the embeded systems...You can't ignor them, they WILL NOT go away. They will not be put off their alloted elaspe time (which will be over the next 24 months beginning about two months ago).And they will cause an enormous amoun of damage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), September 22, 1999.
///A consulting sap, huh.
It's worse than I thought.
SAP the constipator of product and industry.
///
It turns out that you are merely protecting your brother!
That falls under the four F's of the primal brain function.
Fight, flight, food and reproduction.
It is a switchable reaction, but to turn it off in your case will require a re-boot, Hoff.
Have a nice day. Consider medication.
///
-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 22, 1999.
I've said this before, and feel it bears repeating on this thread:Y2K doesn't care HOW YOU FEEL, WHAT YOU THINK, or WHAT YOU SAY. If sufficient remediation has been accomplished, we're cool. If not, we're HOSED.
When the green flag drops, the BULLSH*T stops...
Thank GOD there's only 100 days to go. Reading these long-winded treatises on the various minutiae of Y2K is like listening to political campaign ads/speeches. There's NO ESCAPE, and you JUST WANT IT TO BE OVER WITH.
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 22, 1999.
///Amen, Dennis.
???
-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 22, 1999.
Hey Hoffy,Did you do any work for HERSHEY recently?
Watch out for the squirts. Software bugs won't be the only thing going around come January.
-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.
Hoff.........Rather than try to intelligently understand the points you made and deal with the facts, Diane tried to steer clear of it and instead completely changed the topic with a loooooooooooonnnnnnngggggg post full of links. Then, true to form, Paul Milne displayed his childish tantrum..........
What was the MLM thing you were talking about and what's this about targeting single moms etc? Was Ed Yourdon involved in one of those schemes?
-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 22, 1999.
Craig, see: www.y2kopportunity.com/ for information on the MLM.This thread How's it feel to be made the fool? contains more information, along with a response from Mr Yourdon, where he states:
But I'm also realistic enough to understand that the main reason a typical person becomes a MLM distributor is to make money. Of the hundreds of email messages that I get each day, a surprising number come from people who are GI's, but who simply cannot afford to spend any money stockpiling food, buying a generator, or engaging in any other kind of preparations that cost money. They're on welfare, they're on Social Security, they're on Medicare, they're single mothers barely able to support three kids, etc, etc. The Y2K International operation provides them with a mechanism that (a) enables them to make a modest amount of money in the remaining months before Y2K arrives, and (b) spreads awareness and videos and reports and some practical, useful information to DGI's who might otherwise have continued to remain in a state of ignorance.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.
Missuh Paul came in hea' shuckin an' jivin an' said:Oh, youse some freakin' SAP type. What it is, Mama! Sheeit, dat esplains ya' whole mindset den. 'S coo', bro! No wonda' you's dink dat de problem kin be solved in time. What it is, Mama! Now dat Ah betta' dig it ya' dudestal disability, Ah kin more easily escuse ya' nonsense. What it is, Mama!
-- Fuh'rina Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), Septemba' 22, 1999.
-- 007 (7@7.net), September 22, 1999.
I think this was(past tense, for the most part, because were in the end game now) a great way to get information to a lot of people in a short period of time. If you believe in a cause (like Yourdon) does, this MLM business idea is very effective. Believe it or not, this still is the greatest country in the world to be an entreprenour(sp!), and to find ways to generate cash to take care of your family, especially if you don't have a lot, I think this was a great way to do it....not the only way, but just one of many. Just because your belief in a career in Avon is not for you, does not mean a different MLM couldn't work for others.
-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), September 22, 1999.
Hoff, you get E for effort. You wasted your time though. Yourdon has over twice the experience you do, and he's been around the y2k block, not pigeon holed into one firm's view of things. You see the world through SAP colored glasses, just as Milne accuses. So what if 20,000 of the millions of firms use a product that is Y2K-OK? It's not the big picture Hoffmeister, no matter how hard you and the pollies try to stretch it.And I might add that you are certainly expending an inordinate amount of effort arguing about what you claim will be no big problem. Maybe you should start hanging out at alt.disaster.earthquake. I hear they're big problems these days. :)
-- a (a@a.a), September 22, 1999.
You go a a a a a a a a a
-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), September 22, 1999.
Okay all you BELIEVERS........Clipped from y2kinternational.com ---------------- Level 5. 3125 x $20.00 = $62,500.00
Level 6. 15,625 x $20.00 = $312,500.00
Level 7. ? x $20.00 = ??? Wow! --------------------------
How many of you made $312,500.00.......How many of you reached the Wow level? Uh, well how many made $62,500?.......
Sorry, speak louder, I can't hear you................
I'm just wondering, most MLM companies offer a full money refund if you are not satisfied (perhaps with a small restocking charge)......Does y2kinternational offer the same?
-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 22, 1999.
Hoff says:"My Experience:
Currently, I am an SAP"
I agree - you are a SAP. And you are also a long-winded bore full of nothing but pretentious hot-air. You don't even rate having a debate with Yourdon. Get out of here, you're overloading our server.
-- @ (@@@.@), September 22, 1999.
Gee Craig...a pyramid scheme! Just like Mr. Greenspan's finiancial system. Except instead of buying worthless paper, the MLM customers get food, supplies and survival information. How about that?
-- a (a@a.a), September 22, 1999.
Craig, the MLM debate has been going on for 40 years, ever since Amway started. The good and the bad. You build it right (based on the business organization you are in) and believe in it (ie, put in the real effort), then it works. If your heart is wrong/the business organization is "Me" oriented, and real effort is not expended, then the results will fail. It's not unlike many business ventures. After 5 years, most do fail. Yet, being in business for yourself is the best avenue towards self sufficiency. AND yet, this type of debate is not appropriate in this forum, because any true real efforts using MLM as a vehicle to get info out to the public at this point is short lived. Maybe this issue could have been debated 3 years ago. So lets all stay on the topic that truly affects us all.
-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), September 22, 1999.
Hoff -- It's amazing to me that you waste so much time here, but I'm beginning to get a handle on your motivation finally,which, as is usually the case in this world, is surprisingly "personal".Hoff said [I reply]
In essence, what you are saying is you misjudged the potential market. And I cannot truthfully say I'm sorry in that regard; in particular, the MLM venture. In truth, that episode truly disgusted me, especially after your statement that it was actually targeted towards single mothers, people on Social Security, Medicare, etc.
[If one believes that preparation against a possible Y2K collapse is worthwhile, as I do, it is scarcely "disgusting" to try to provide workable, affordable solutions for the people who are mostly likely to be hurt, considering that OUR GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. Not all such solutions must be offered for free in order to be genuine. This notion that Ed is taking advantage of the "poor widders", apart from the usual cultural assignment of adult human beings as helpless, passive victims, is absurd.]
But again, how you make your living is none of my business.
[Disingenuous though I believe you meant that honestly. Point: you are making it your business in the biggest possible way on this forum -- consciously in this thread and, apparently, as a big personal motivator to you, on other threads.]
What it does reflect upon, however, is your objectivity in applying your experience and credentials to Y2k.
[Objectivity is one of those bogus words that sound so neat while there there tain't no such thing anywhere in this world. Ed's experience, motives, activities and thoughts are about as open and out-front as they can be. You may not LIKE them, but that is another matter. Whether Ed, Jaeger, me, you, Greenspan or Bozo the Clown, we're all "promoting" our position on EVERYTHING in life up to the current moment.]
When the insurance salesman calls, he's not pretending to be a doctor, telling me I probably have some disease, attempting to sell me insurance for the disease.
[Irrelevant and insulting in the extreme to Yourdon, though not surprising given your contemptuous view of his integrity. With respect to Y2K, Ed IS a "doctor" and he is offering his services (software, prep, etc) to those who wish to avail themselves of them. Whoa! Now, THERE is a concept. I am also a doctor. So are you. Oh, I forgot! Ed, unlike us, is MANIPULATING the helpless!]
Likewise, if I were to go to the doctor, and find him prescribing some new, unknown drug, I don't expect him to be the owner of the drug company.
[Irrelevant. Anyway, if he WAS, you make your own decision on whether or not to get the drug. You .... are ... an ... adult. Maybe it turns out the drug ... actually .... works ..... but the doc couldn't get anyone else to develop it. Whoa! Another concept!]
As is the case here. How you make your living is your business. But your statements simply cannot be taken as objective evaluations of the situation. You have a direct, vested interest in maintaining a level of fear, uncertainty and doubt; apparently more so now, since, as you say, the market has collapsed.
[Your naive view of "objectivity" needs to be turned on yourself, Hoff. Now, you've waved the red FUD flag at Ed (you know darn well as a techie how inflammatory and condemnatory those words are). To those looking in, Hoff is directly accusing Yourdon of profiting personally and financially while KNOWINGLY scaring the people he is profiting from.
That is, Ed is a LIAR (ignore Hoff and Flint and just stick to the ordinary usage of those terms) as well as a hypocrite.
Hoff, you're getting there, but why not strip the smooth technical- eze from this post and just spit it out. Course, guess I've done that for you.]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 22, 1999.
Thank you, Hoff for your posts and thank you Ed, for yours. What remains after the smoke has cleared is for us individually to ponder. I appreciate the opportunity to access and digest the information for myself, despite the flaming. (where oh where is that moderate moderation???) I think this exemplifies the purpose of a forum at its best.
-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), September 22, 1999.
Well, Hoff, an interesting riposte. Unlike some regular readers, I find the interaction between Hoff and Yourdon informative.Ultimately, I think Yourdon left Hoff's primary points unanswered. Given the rate of remediation, upgrades, etc., we are undoubtedly dealing with vast numbers of "glitches." Despite this, we continue to function. While not an IT "expert," I have suggested from the beginning software development metrics ought not apply to remediation. I feel the same way about Y2K errors. As Hoff notes, as a class of errors, they seem only mildly "wicked."
In response to Russ (BD), I think adults can make their own economic decisions. For example, I think Paul Milne capable of exercising his economic rights despite his receiving a government subsidy.
While Yourdon may have failed on his MLM venture, I still think his entry into Y2K was a sound business move. He obviously found many "spin offs" from his book... like any savvy businessperson.
Of course, his self interest does conflict with his role as an objective reporter of Y2K. While I trust my doctor, I'll still ask for a second opinion. You may not like the word, "objective," Russ. I agree that there is no "perfect" objectivity (after all, we are using an imperfect language.) We must, however, weight factors like a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST when considering a source. Who do you trust more, Russ, the Wall Street Journal or the PR firm representing a Fortune 500 company? I do see where your position lays the groundwork for the "we can't trust anyone" attack now so commonly used by pessimists.
I have no reason to call Yourdon a liar. He's a soothsayer who sees a grim future... and a salesman willing to profit on his prophecy. While Yourdon frames himself as an altruist... I think of somone selling lifejackets while predicting the ship will sink. Oh, I almost forgot the part where he contends he could have made more money staying on shore. Yourdon has a right to make a living... and he is selling to consenting adults. Well, no one ever said the free market was always pleasant to watch.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), September 22, 1999.
Decker said [I reply]Well, Hoff, an interesting riposte. Unlike some regular readers, I find the interaction between Hoff and Yourdon informative. Ultimately, I think Yourdon left Hoff's primary points unanswered. Given the rate of remediation, upgrades, etc., we are undoubtedly dealing with vast numbers of "glitches." Despite this, we continue to function. While not an IT "expert," I have suggested from the beginning software development metrics ought not apply to remediation. I feel the same way about Y2K errors. As Hoff notes, as a class of errors, they seem only mildly "wicked."
[Wrong, IMO, but completely irrelevant entirely to Yourdon's letter to Greenspan and Hoff's attack on him.]
In response to Russ (BD), I think adults can make their own economic decisions. For example, I think Paul Milne capable of exercising his economic rights despite his receiving a government subsidy.
[What kind of an ad hoc attack is this and what is its relevance to this thread beyond smearing Milne and, by implication, Yourdon?]
While Yourdon may have failed on his MLM venture, I still think his entry into Y2K was a sound business move. He obviously found many "spin offs" from his book... like any savvy businessperson.
Of course, his self interest does conflict with his role as an objective reporter of Y2K. While I trust my doctor, I'll still ask for a second opinion. You may not like the word, "objective," Russ. I agree that there is no "perfect" objectivity (after all, we are using an imperfect language.)
[I "like" the word 'objective' just fine. It doesn't change the fact that objectivity is entirely a myth, promulgated originally by Enlightenment science and discarded, wisely, by 20th century scientists and philosophers who have come to understand that it is self-contradictory. Language has NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.]
We must, however, weight factors like a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST when considering a source. Who do you trust more, Russ, the Wall Street Journal or the PR firm representing a Fortune 500 company? I do see where your position lays the groundwork for the "we can't trust anyone" attack now so commonly used by pessimists.
[Who are those people Decker? Not me, since I have said the difficulty is in telling when and how to trust, a difficulty which would be entirely removed if "we can't trust anyone." Financial interest is undoubtedly a factor in weighing motives. Ed has been quite open about all his activities and you may well weigh them if you wish. I weigh Hoff's advocacy for SAP, for instance, his bread and butter.]
I have no reason to call Yourdon a liar.
[That's nice, but who cares? It's Hoff who effectively termed Yourdon a liar, pure and simple. No subtlety about it, except that some non- IT folks might just possibly miss it.]
He's a soothsayer who sees a grim future... and a salesman willing to profit on his prophecy. While Yourdon frames himself as an altruist... I think of somone selling lifejackets while predicting the ship will sink.
[That is as scurrilous an attack on Yourdon as Hoff's. It mixes all sorts of metaphors (since lifejackets are, by long history, given for free to passengers on a boat) nastily. Yourdon, btw, has never described himself as an altruist, so you're setting up a straw man that makes him look hypocritical.]
Oh, I almost forgot the part where he contends he could have made more money staying on shore. Yourdon has a right to make a living... and he is selling to consenting adults. Well, no one ever said the free market was always pleasant to watch.
["I almost forgot". Oh, yeah, I'm sure. I guess you're just showing your "sweet Internet side" again ....]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 22, 1999.
I will admit, I am in a very bad mood right now, as I just read the above mentioned Senate report that someone claimed Diane had inserted in this thread as a distraction. Well, I feel it appropriate to re-insert it at this point.Seems to me, if you pollies want to debunk or debate something/someone...start here...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rwk
-- Lilly (homesteader145@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.
Hoffy's BS is almost as bad as Flint's. There's an old saying that goes, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls**t." The eyes just glaze over trying to read these LONG, confusing posts from Hoffmeister and Flint. Well guys, you have just 100 days left to spin your BS, then it's OVER. One way or another. So have fun while it lasts!
-- B.S. Detector (bsdetector@thissucks.com), September 22, 1999.
Hoffmeister, your attempts to discredit Yourdon are the old, old game of "Shoot the Messenger". And your credentials don't impress me a bit. Your hiding behind a fake name isn't impressive either. No one should trust you, no one! You are not nearly the expert you claim to be.
-- Shoot the Messenger (shootthemessenger@ridiculous.com), September 22, 1999.
BigDogIf Mr Yourdon is as open and up-front about his experiences, motives and activities as you say, then why is there such an uproar when these are pointed out?
In fact, he defended his involvement in the MLM in part by stating that there was no direct link, for example, from his site to the MLM site.
Yes, we all have motives and incentives. Y'all have no problem whatsoever making that point, in spades, in regard to Greenspan, NERC, and in general whatever entity may be making statements that conflict with your conclusions about Y2k. But seem to take extreme exception here.
Why you try to defend Mr Yourdon and his creation of FUD is quite beyond me. Did you read his last paragraph? He takes pride in creating Uncertainty, and offers no apologies. He says he "worries" about creating Fear, but in essence offers no apologies there, either. He admits to this; why do you insist that he does not?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.
It looked like a can't-miss prospect. Major global difficulties resulting from a pervasive programming error, and here's Ed Yourdon, IT expert and author of many computer books, ready to capitalize. Why not? The problem is big and real, Ed is a great communicator with just the right technical knowledge, it looks like a marriage made in heaven.Problem is, it didn't work out that way. Yes, his book sold OK but not in the same league as a King or Grisham novel. His MLM efforts were a bust. The speaking engagements, once all the time required is added in, don't amount to that much.
Because the dang disaster didn't show up on time! 01/01/99 came and went, and all those 1-year lookaheads and JAEs and a host of other predicted problems somehow slid by without a ripple. Then April 1 came and went, and the speculation Ed was convinced would end didn't end, because again nothing happened. By August 1, pigs were flying, and it had become clear that Yourdon had placed a major bet on the wrong horse.
Is it any wonder Ed Yourdon cannot seem to grasp Hoff's point that we are now, today, experiencing as high a rate of y2k-induced problems as we are ever likely to? When Hoff points out (along with a whole lot of people here) that SAP implementations do NOT go smoothly (see the Lucent and Hershey threads), and these implementations are being done to address y2k, Yourdon is mystified. He doesn't seem to get past his implied objection that these problems *don't count* because it isn't 2000 yet!
If things really fall apart, then I'm personally wrong. But that's trivial compared to the hardship of things falling apart. But if we're right now going through the worst y2k will bring us, Yourdon's reputation will consist of not much more than tattered remains of past glories, such as they were. And certainly if I were in Yourdon's shoes, this would at least be in the back of my mind at all times. It's not easy to admit you blew it that badly (if you did), after you bet your reputation. By now, it's not hard to read a bit of desperation behind Ed's careful writing. We should be well into the twilight zone by now, and the sun still looks to be directly overhead.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 22, 1999.
Hoff --Yourdon said, in the paragraph you cite ...
"If I have helped to create uncertainty, I have nothing to apologize for. Anyone who feels that he can sell, or create, "certainty" about Y2K is a far larger and more dangerous snake-oil salesman than anything you could accuse me of. As for creating fear ... well, I do worry about that, and I try as hard as I can to express my thoughts and opinions in an objective fashion that encourages people to make up their own mind. If you talk about AIDS, or pollution, or nuclear accidents, or global warming, or the disappearance of the ozone layer, some people are going to be fearful; but I don't think that means we should stop talking about it, or only allow ourselves to express cheerful, optimistic statements. The reality is that there are some scary things that confront us, and we need to acknowledge them and cope with them in a responsible fashion. That's what I'm trying to do with Y2K; I may not have lived up to your standards, but I'm doing the best I can."
What he is saying is that it is Y2K that IS scary, properly understood. He is also saying that anyone who tries to describe Y2K with certainty (I assume Ed would include doomers/pollies here alike) is the culprit, not someone who describes the uncertainty THAT EXISTS.
If this is where you get the idea about FUD, I believe you truly misunderstood and, if so, owe Ed an apology. Otherwise, it still holds that you are accusing him of deceitfully profiting on information he KNOWS to be false (ie., about the nature of Y2K).
I sincerely hope it is a case of misunderstanding.
Flint -- Given your approval of an amoral approach to ethics and life, I suppose your depiction of Yourdon (which paints a picture of an utterly amoral human being) makes sense. I truly feel sorry for you. You're not describing the real man but a projected image of your own spirit and philosophy.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 22, 1999.
I only have 1/3 of Hoff's experience, but I'm afraid it looks more like the Yourdon/Dilbert world than the SAP world.I also know that my company has at least 400 custsomers who have not yet *scheduled* their Y2K upgrades for our software. Assuming everything else works normally across the new year, that is still a few hundred call centers (our custmers) who will either a) irretreivably corrupt their data by continuing to use the non- compliant product or b)go to a paper system. In either case, it will easily be a couple of months into the new year before we are able to upgrade/fix these systems. Without the ability to report on their productivity, these call centers (which represent "overhead" to their companies) may be shut down. Not the end of the world, but possibly the loss of several contracts and a couple hundred jobs. Just from one "non-critical" non-compliant system.
Not very relevant to MLM's and perhaps not to the Yourdon/Hoffman debate, but something to consider if reports of 99.7% compliance of mission critical systems gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.
-- Y2Krazy (maxcel@swlink.net), September 22, 1999.
Yes Lilly,By pointing to the Senate report, it was my way of suggesting to Hoffy, and a few other "polly-types," that they READ it. Too subtle a hammer for 'em.
Not surprising.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.
///Hoff
The meter is still running !!!
///
-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 22, 1999.
Big Dog:Either I'm not writing well, or you are going out of your way to misunderstand. I'll assume the problem is mine and try again.
I see nothing amoral in trying to make a living. When I look for a job, I pick and choose among offers each of which has different advantages and disadvantages, and different prospects for the future (according to my guesses). Nothing amoral about this -- I imagine you do cost-benefit analyses at some level as well. And Ed Yourdon admits that had he chosen a different allocation of his efforts than y2k, he could have made more money.
No, he doesn't say that he'd have chosen differently if he'd had a crystal ball. From his perspective (as well as I can understand it), betting on the y2k horse had certain drawbacks, with respect to finances, reputation, quality of advice given, etc. The assumption he seems to have surely made when he bet on that horse, was that it would win. We all try to bet on winners. And though the horse hasn't lost yet, it's clearly not the runaway leader, and Hoffmeister is making an excellent case that it's losing ground.
If I were Yourdon, this would bother me. I imagine it would bother you too. Yourdon's experience made him quite explicitly sure that we'd be in deep trouble by now. We aren't. Either you admit that you guessed wrong and your 35 years of experience were a poor guide, or you must argue that the race isn't over yet, and your horse still has time to win. Admitting errors, especially BIG ones, is difficult even for moral people.
Like most people, when I'm utterly convinced of something that turns out not to be the case, I find it very hard to follow and understand arguments that undermine my convictions. I include Ed Yourdon in with the "most people". I don't think morality has much to do with this.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 22, 1999.
[polly-style "thinking" on]So, Hoffmeister is an SAP (Stress/Anxiety/Panic) guy? And he touts what a great solution SAP is for... Y2K!
Does anybody else see a PROFIT motive there?
So, everything he says about Y2K is crap.
[polly-style "thinking" off]
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 22, 1999.
LOL. Too funny, Lane.Actually, I don't tout SAP. It just happens to be what I'm currently doing.
In any case, the idea that anything I post here would influence anyone with the actual ability to purchase SAP is probably one of the funniest things I've seen in quite awhile.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.
Lane:You don't need to look any too hard to find real doomer style thinking along these lines, you know. You don't even need to make it up.
Some people have said, SAP is working poorly at Lucent and Hershey. THEREFORE SAP is a crock of shit. Hoffmeister is a SAP consultant. By association, Hoffmeister is a crock of shit also. THEREFORE, we don't need to pay attention to anything he says.
This train of thought has been posted, in various forms, for quite a while. Meanwhile, in reality (remember reality, Lane? You ought to reintroduce yourself periodically) Hoffmeister is pointing to failed SAP implementations in support of his argument that y2k is causing bigtime problems right now. As with Lucent and Hershey.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 22, 1999.
Hoff and Flint, you two are too funny.I posted a typical Polly ploy. You both pointed out how stupid it was.
Exactly my point, boys. Exactly my point.
Thanks. :-)
Too predictable.........
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 22, 1999.
Yes, Lane, seeing more of this supposed cunning from you lately.Let's see:
Comparing the ability of my posts here to influence multi-million dollar corporate decisions,
With the ability of people like Ed Yourdon to influence individuals decisions on Y2k.
Yep. Pretty much a draw there, Lane.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.
Where's the proof, Hoffmeister and Flint, that the amount of errors generated by current remediation is greater than the errors to be experienced next year? If we are to believe the surveys, a large number of the businesses in this country are doing nothing about Y2k whatsoever. In my own experience I have yet to find 1 out of 10 local businesses that have any concern at all about Y2K.Furthermore, we're still operating in a 1999 environment in which the vast majority of the embedded systems and hardware Y2K problems don't even exist yet.
As for your bigoted attitude about MLM's, I know a number of people who have done very well with an MLM, starting at the very bottom. Maybe your collar is just too lily-white to get a little smear of honest working man's dirt on it?
-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 22, 1999.
Flint & Hoff said:"We are now, today, experiencing as high a rate of y2k-induced problems as we are ever likely to"
huh? whazat?
"We are now, today, experiencing as high a rate of y2k-induced problems as we are ever likely to"
BWHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA
I think Al-D makes more sense than you two! LOL LOL LOL
-- a (a@a.a), September 22, 1999.
Flint said [I reply]No, he doesn't say that he'd have chosen differently if he'd had a crystal ball. From his perspective (as well as I can understand it), betting on the y2k horse had certain drawbacks, with respect to finances, reputation, quality of advice given, etc. The assumption he seems to have surely made when he bet on that horse, was that it would win. We all try to bet on winners. And though the horse hasn't lost yet, it's clearly not the runaway leader, and Hoffmeister is making an excellent case that it's losing ground.
[This way of thinking is so foreign to me that I don't know what to make of it. I can't imagine thinking of Y2K as some "horse that might win" that I'm betting on. I can imagine thinking Y2K has the potential to be a terrible problem and that I should, perhaps, devote the next years of my life to trying to explain it and fix it, while, sure, supporting my family. And I can imagine discovering that it might be wise to prepare my family and, by extension, help others to prepare. And I might decide to sponsor an Internet forum and write a book. I might choose to give the book away for free on the Net for a period of time as well as, yes, earn some money from royalties on it. And I would do all this without for a second forgetting the serious and worrisome nature of Y2K itself. Betting on Y2K? I would hope all along that I was wrong about its impact.]
If I were Yourdon, this would bother me. I imagine it would bother you too. Yourdon's experience made him quite explicitly sure that we'd be in deep trouble by now. We aren't. Either you admit that you guessed wrong and your 35 years of experience were a poor guide, or you must argue that the race isn't over yet, and your horse still has time to win. Admitting errors, especially BIG ones, is difficult even for moral people.
[Excuse me but I believe Yourdon has admitted he was wrong about those 1999 trigger dates? And done so graciously and directly? What's going on here? I also believe he has flat-out said he will admit being wrong in 2000, if need be? (Though I consider that whole mea culpa game a crock on all sides --- I'm not looking for "confessions" from Milne, Yourdon, Hoff, Decker or you, how ludicrous).
While your tone is more judious in this post, which I personally appreciate, you're still describing a person (Yourdon) whom I don't recognize from my contacts with him and his own writings.
Mind you, I insist there IS no objectivity. That's why I post this as though it were "me" who were doing these "Yourdon" things over the past few years. I can't IMAGINE doing them in the spirit that you describe.]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 22, 1999.
ANYONE who expected SAP to be their savior now understands that they were wrong and they have a BIG problem if they are a large entity and started after 1997. One of my long time clients is an employee of McBooz-Anderson-MG. She is a SAP specialist, in one small area. She has been on one project team for one corporation (VERY recognizable multi-national) for 3 years. Expected completion date = 6/1998. Current ECD = 1/1/2000. (She HOPES). BTW this is an IT Hardware company.Chuck a Night Driver
-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 23, 1999.
Ah, the Big "Dodger" returns. After six months on this forum, Russ, I have learned you rarely answer a question directly. Yourdon did not address "Hoff's" core points in his response... nor have you. Period. If I might restate:1. There are an unprecedented number of systems being replaced, upgraded, remediated, patched, etc.
2. The above processes inevitably result in problems.
3. The problems generated by migration to new systems or remediation of old systems are (in general terms) more difficult to resolve than Y2K date-related errors.
4. Thus far in 1999, there have been few reports of massive software faiures and NO reports of the "domino effect" problems as predicted by some pessimists.
5. Therefore, if the above assertions are generally correct, one might theorize that our capacity to handle software and hardware problems is substantially greater than the failure threshold predicted by some pessimists.
In short, why aren't we having massive problems right now given what we know about the IT work underway?
Oh, the Milne reference was "needling." I find his protests against the Federal Government rather hypocritical in light of his willingness to accept its support. As to your contention about language... of course, it is a factor. It is also an argument far too lengthy for this forum.
As usual, you dodge the issue on "trust." Trust is relative, not binary (though you do have a rather binary vision of the world.) I trust the Wall Street Journal more than a PR firm... for many reasons. Yourdon has advertised his activities... on a forum full of potential customers. As Hoff noted, how many potential SAP customers are here? (laughter) Remember, I went to the Northern Virginia gathering... nice people but not a CIO in the bunch. To my knowledge, Hoff has never attempted to "sell" SAP or refer folks to his web page.
My lifejacket metaphor stands. Yourdon, in his letter, stated that he could have made more money by staying in consulting (rather than pursuing Y2K.) By inference, he is suggesting he made an economic sacrifice to pursue this goal. Sounds like altruism to me.
In addition, Yourdon claims the future of our country, our world, is at stake. If you had this information, Russ, how much would you charge for it? Would you take royalties or lower the cost of the book to publishing and marketing only? After all, at a lower price more people will purchase the book... more lives will be saved. Hey, Russ, I hear Bible companies make a tidy profit... but I'd rather have lunch with the Gideons.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), September 23, 1999.
"What I am saying, Mr. Yourdon, is that the error rates that have been and are being generated today, due to these software implementations and replacements, in total far outweigh the error rates that can be expected at the date rollover. And that the simultaneous error rates being experienced today approach or exceed the rate of errors that can be expected at the date rollover."Hoff, The above assumes that a large portion of the code being introduced to address Y2K is in fact being exercised in production systems prior to 1/1/00. This might not be the case.
It is common for a system to have to support a business model that was not in effect when the system was originally built. The changes required to make the system consistent with an evolving business model, may eventually result in code that is far removed from its original logical structure (and in fact may have little logical structure of any sort). Yet, a system is nearly always modified rather than rebuilt, since the former is less expensive in the short run.
I think it's safe to assume that this approach, where feasible, is also being taken with Y2K remediation, meaning that much of the existing code is left in place, new code is introduced to handle post- 1999, and control structures (e.g., if/then/else) determine which is executed.
So the proportion of Y2K-related errors that will occur before 1/1/00, will depend on the relative number of instances that a system is concerned with a date in the future rather than current or past date.
Therefore, I expect more errors to occur on 1/1/00 than on any single day up to that point.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
David, a large portion of the errors are introduced through system replacement. The systems themselves are not being activated on 12/31/1999.As for modifications, the use of date expansion requires that the code is being exercised currently.
And every form of windowing I've seen implemented, windows dates both prior and after 1/1/2000.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
"David, a large portion of the errors are introduced through system replacement. The systems themselves are not being activated on 12/31/1999."I'm not sure what your first sentence is considering as the universe of errors. But I was referring to selected portions of code rather than to entire systems. For example, code for computing bank interest earned in the previous month, would deal strictly with pre-2000 dates until after the calendar reaches 1/1/00. Hence its ability to compute interest properly for post 1/1/00 would not be tested under field conditions until sometime next year.
"As for modifications, the use of date expansion requires that the code is being exercised currently."
"And every form of windowing I've seen implemented, windows dates both prior and after 1/1/2000."
This does not cover all approaches to Y2K code remediation. Continuing the bank interest example, one could leave in place the two digit representation of year, and write code to interpret 00-98 as the last two digits of a 20xx year, and 99 as 1999. I'm not saying this is elegant, I almost get nauseous just thinking about it. But if a team of programmers is charged with ensuring that the system handles the year 2000, and to do so as quickly as cheaply as possible, that set of constraints may frequently result in approaches such as the above.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
I'm not sure what your first sentence is considering as the universe of errors. But I was referring to selected portions of code rather than to entire systems. For example, code for computing bank interest earned in the previous month, would deal strictly with pre-2000 dates until after the calendar reaches 1/1/00. Hence its ability to compute interest properly for post 1/1/00 would not be tested under field conditions until sometime next year.What I'm talking about is that a large percentage of the errors I'm referring to have really no relation to date-processing at all.
Organizations have been replacing older systems, with systems such as SAP, Oracle, BAAN, etc. These implementations in and of themselves generate large numbers of errors.
This does not cover all approaches to Y2K code remediation. Continuing the bank interest example, one could leave in place the two digit representation of year, and write code to interpret 00-98 as the last two digits of a 20xx year, and 99 as 1999. I'm not saying this is elegant, I almost get nauseous just thinking about it. But if a team of programmers is charged with ensuring that the system handles the year 2000, and to do so as quickly as cheaply as possible, that set of constraints may frequently result in approaches such as the above.
I guess I don't follow; this sounds like just another form of windowing.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
What I'm talking about is that a large percentage of the errors I'm referring to have really no relation to date-processing at all.
Organizations have been replacing older systems, with systems such as SAP, Oracle, BAAN, etc. These implementations in and of themselves generate large numbers of errors.
I agree that moving to a new platform results in large numbers of errors. But where a large portion of "observed Y2K errors" was attributable solely to change in platform, to what degree was the application code also changing? Also, how rigorously was the application tested for Y2K compliance after being migrated?
I guess I don't follow; this sounds like just another form of windowing.
OK, guess I don't fully understand the term "windowing." I thought you were saying that the same code would be handling both pre-2000 and post-1999 dates, and therefore if it works correctly for the former, it was likely to work correctly for the latter. That's why I provided an example where the pre-2000 code was distinct from the post-1999 code.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
OK, guess I don't fully understand the term "windowing." I thought you were saying that the same code would be handling both pre-2000 and post-1999 dates, and therefore if it works correctly for the former, it was likely to work correctly for the latter. That's why I provided an example where the pre-2000 code was distinct from the post-1999 code.
To clarify (hopefully), I meant that the code of a given release of a system might have a set of instructions (inherited from prior releases of the system) for handling pre-2000 dates, a newly added set of instructions for handling post-1999 dates, and control logic to determine which of the first two segments of instructions to invoke.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
I agree that moving to a new platform results in large numbers of errors. But where a large portion of "observed Y2K errors" was attributable solely to change in platform, to what degree was the application code also changing? Also, how rigorously was the application tested for Y2K compliance after being migrated?Still disconnecting, I think. The "application code" isn't changing; it is being replaced.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
Still disconnecting, I think. The "application code" isn't changing; it is being replaced.
OK, so I think you are referring specifically to where change in platform is accompanied by a wholesale rewrite of the application. But wouldn't this be a subset (though perhaps a significant subset) of all Y2K remediation situations. Some systems can be made compliant solely by modifying the code, or by accompanying that with an upgrade in the existing platform.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
Yes, it is a subset.The original post I made assumed that 1/3 of the applications would be completely untouched. Of the 2/3 remaining, I assumed 1/2 were replaced, and 1/2 remediated.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
Yes, it is a subset.
The original post I made assumed that 1/3 of the applications would be completely untouched. Of the 2/3 remaining, I assumed 1/2 were replaced, and 1/2 remediated.
Thanks Hoff, I must have missed that. But this brings us back to the statement that started off our chat:
What I am saying, Mr. Yourdon, is that the error rates that have been and are being generated today, due to these software implementations and replacements, in total far outweigh the error rates that can be expected at the date rollover. And that the simultaneous error rates being experienced today approach or exceed the rate of errors that can be expected at the date rollover.
I'll grant that the volume of total errors resulting from replacement of a system (and which includes many types of software bugs, of which Y2K related ones are a tiny portion) dwarfs the number of Y2K related errors in a remediated system of comparable size. But consider the following: 1. In general, it is much easier to find the source of a bug in a new system than in an old one of comparable size.
2. Replacements of systems are taking place over many months, so the detection of their bugs is spread out.
3. The cost to replace a system is at least partially dependent on its size, suggesting that remediated systems tend to be larger than replaced ones.
4. Some portion of Y2K related bugs cannot surface under field conditions, until after the rollover. There are too many unknowns to try to demonstrate that simultaneous failures will be much greater after rollover than they will have been up to that time, but in view of the above, I wouldn't dismiss that possibility.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
I'll grant that the volume of total errors resulting from replacement of a system (and which includes many types of software bugs, of which Y2K related ones are a tiny portion) dwarfs the number of Y2K related errors in a remediated system of comparable size. But consider the following:1. In general, it is much easier to find the source of a bug in a new system than in an old one of comparable size.
Maybe in general, and assuming it's a "code" error.
But errors through implementations can involve many other variables, outside of just "code" errors. Invalid installations. Load handling problems. Problems in data conversions.
Compare these possibilities to the possibilities when a subset of the code cannot handle year 2000 dates.
My opinion is the Y2k date errors are in essence trivial in comparison.
2. Replacements of systems are taking place over many months, so the detection of their bugs is spread out.
That's why I spread the errors out over a 24-month period, to determine a comparable, simultaneous error rate.
3. The cost to replace a system is at least partially dependent on its size, suggesting that remediated systems tend to be larger than replaced ones.
Lost me here.
4. Some portion of Y2K related bugs cannot surface under field conditions, until after the rollover. There are too many unknowns to try to demonstrate that simultaneous failures will be much greater after rollover than they will have been up to that time, but in view of the above, I wouldn't dismiss that possibility.
Granted. Again, the original post used estimates from Capers Jones on bug removal rates, etc., to account for these as well.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
1. In general, it is much easier to find the source of a bug in a new system than in an old one of comparable size.
H: Maybe in general, and assuming it's a "code" error.
But errors through implementations can involve many other variables, outside of just "code" errors. Invalid installations. Load handling problems. Problems in data conversions.
Compare these possibilities to the possibilities when a subset of the code cannot handle year 2000 dates.
My opinion is the Y2k date errors are in essence trivial in comparison.
If a system that seemed to be functioning normally, suddenly locked up completely, I'm not sure that finding the cause would be that easy, even if the underlying cause turned out to be noncompliant code. But as you say, implementations are no picnic either. I guess the two classes of problems can be equally vexing.
2. Replacements of systems are taking place over many months, so the detection of their bugs is spread out.
H: That's why I spread the errors out over a 24-month period, to determine a comparable, simultaneous error rate.
OK. I see that in your response to Ed Yourdon that begins this thread, that you draw on failure estimates from the Gartner Group and others. At this point, even if I were satisfied that your calculations are valid, I'd still need to understand how the underlying failure estimates were derived in order to fully accept your calculations as sound. I'm not saying you should have used different estimates, just that my confidence in a chain of reasoning increases if I can trace back to its root.
3. The cost to replace a system is at least partially dependent on its size, suggesting that remediated systems tend to be larger than replaced ones.
H: Lost me here.
Sorry. I meant that the larger a system, the more expensive to replace, hence the more attractive the option to remediate. So given equal numbers of systems that are replaced versus remediated, the latter would tend to be disproportionately represented among larger systems.
4. Some portion of Y2K related bugs cannot surface under field conditions, until after the rollover.
H: Granted. Again, the original post used estimates from Capers Jones on bug removal rates, etc., to account for these as well.
It looks like all we have left to discuss on this subject is whether the Gartner Group, Capers Jones, etc., estimated soundly, which leads us back to the dreaded "my expert is better than yours" game. I'm glad we had this exchange, as you gave me plenty to chew on. Curious that no one posted to this thread while we were exchanging posts. Either 1) they were fascinated; 2) they were working when I should've been; or 3) interest is quickly lost in threads at least one day old. BTW - If you think our exchange is interesting enough to start a thread with, be my guest. I'm not sure that it is, but I'm also not sure that it isn't. Thanks for an absorbing afternoon.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 23, 1999.
Sorry. I meant that the larger a system, the more expensive to replace, hence the more attractive the option to remediate. So given equal numbers of systems that are replaced versus remediated, the latter would tend to be disproportionately represented among larger systems.Actually, my guess would be just the opposite. SAP, for example, doesn't charge by the size of the system being replaced. The larger, older systems are more difficult to remediate, which made them prime targets for replacement.
It looks like all we have left to discuss on this subject is whether the Gartner Group, Capers Jones, etc., estimated soundly, which leads us back to the dreaded "my expert is better than yours" game. I'm glad we had this exchange, as you gave me plenty to chew on. Curious that no one posted to this thread while we were exchanging posts. Either 1) they were fascinated; 2) they were working when I should've been; or 3) interest is quickly lost in threads at least one day old. BTW - If you think our exchange is interesting enough to start a thread with, be my guest. I'm not sure that it is, but I'm also not sure that it isn't. Thanks for an absorbing afternoon.
I don't know that anyone questions the actual metrics of Jones. In fact, I used his estimates precisely because he is quoted so often by Yourdon himself.
As for Gartner Group, their latest report available here gives some more detail on their estimates. In any case, I actually doubled their actual estimate, to provide some level of conservatism.
Finally, judging by the number of people who have stated they are basically ignoring my posts, my answer would be 4) None of the Above.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 24, 1999.
The reason nobody else posted to this thread is because the thread has degenerated into nothing but logical arguments and level-headed discussion. It's very difficult to concentrate on calling Hoffmeister nasty names with all this discussion going on. I really wish you'd both just cut it out.Hey Hoffy, you're a freakin' SAP wierdo! And so's your mom!
There. Maybe that will help.
-- (monkey@in.the.middle), September 24, 1999.
The reason nobody else posted to this thread is because the thread has degenerated into nothing but logical arguments and level-headed discussion. It's very difficult to concentrate on calling Hoffmeister nasty names with all this discussion going on. I really wish you'd both just cut it out.
LOL! I considered that reason, but was reluctant to mention it. Sorry Monkey, your effort goes for naught.
Actually, my guess would be just the opposite. SAP, for example, doesn't charge by the size of the system being replaced. The larger, older systems are more difficult to remediate, which made them prime targets for replacement.
But replacing a system requires substantially more subject matter knowledge than remediating it. While it can be difficult to ascertain whether a two digit variable in a program represents an absolute date, that seems far easier than understanding what that variable is actually used for, not to mention all the other variables in a program.
If a system is having problems on many fronts, Y2K being just one, then replacement appears more viable.
I don't know that anyone questions the actual metrics of Jones. In fact, I used his estimates precisely because he is quoted so often by Yourdon himself.
Sure, but that no one has questioned those estimates doesn't mean that they are beyond questioning. On several occasions, I have read published technical articles only to discover appalling errors in logic, and this was in fields where my formal background is nil.
As for Gartner Group, their latest report available here gives some more detail on their estimates. In any case, I actually doubled their actual estimate, to provide some level of conservatism.
Thanks for the link.
Finally, judging by the number of people who have stated they are basically ignoring my posts, my answer would be 4) None of the Above.
True, but I wasn't aware of a crusade against my posts. (Okay Monkey, I threw you a bone.)
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 24, 1999.
Hoff - Thanks for your well thought out reply. It was refreshing free of emotional overtones which cloud this issue from both sides. Of course now I have to give my argument. It is my understanding that SAP is a shipping/inventory tracking/accounts receivable/manufacturing type application. (Feel free to tell us what it really is.)I'm glad you've been successful with it. My former employer was not successful, in part because of the difficulty in attracting SAP consultants to central Pennsylvania. I assume you live someplace desirable.Unfortunately, state and local governments, including the Dept. of Defense, use mostly home-grown software. This is due to the special nature of their work. Having seen first-hand what is happening, particularly with the Navy, I do not share your overall confidence. I'll grant you that many industries use packaged software - I've seen it at my dentist office and insurance office, for example. Government doesn't. When people say you are wearing SAP colored glasses, they are just telling you you don't see the whole picture. Hope this made sense.
-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), September 24, 1999.
Amy, I at least attempt to account for bias derived from my experience. As well, my first 10-11 years of experience were entirely with home-grown systems.I never said SAP was for everyone. But, I believe even Bob Mangus alluded to the fact the City of Detroit was implementing SAP. So it still has some application, even at the local government level.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 24, 1999.
Hoff,I have just finished reading and pondering your analysis. Setting aside questions about the assumptions (which we have already discussed), I basically agree with the computational result as reflected in the following paragraph. But I disagree with your interpretation of that result.
Adding the previous error rate of .1% gives 1.13% of function points generating errors during each of the 12 monthends in 1999. This rate compares with the estimated baseline of 1.05% of function points generating errors at rollover.
(Note to the reader: the 1.13% figure applies to errors resulting from system replacement, the 1.05% figure applies to Y2K related errors occuring at rollover in systems that have been neither replaced nor remediated.)
The problem I see arises during the last week of 1999. The error rate of 1.13%/month from system replacement is equivalent to .28% per week (rounded). The error rate of 1.05% for untouched systems was assumed to cover the last week of 1999 and the first week of 2000, giving .53% (rounded) for each of those two weeks. The last week of 1999 will have both error rates, resulting in a combined error rate of .28% + .53% = .81%.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 24, 1999.
First you say this: Anyway, SAP has been a large part of many corporation's Y2k strategy. SAP can and is installed to replace the large, legacy enterprise systems that can be a real problem to modify and fix for Y2k.Then you say this: Keep in mind as well, that as a class of errors, Y2k problems are essentially trivial.
If the errors are so trivial, why bother with SAP at all?
Furthermore, the government states that it is nearly complete with its mission critical systems. If only one out of five are deemed mission critical, that leaves a lot of code that is going to bomb.
-- Amy (leoneamy@aol.com), September 25, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, CaliforniaI have argued elsewhere, in a thread that touched on addy.available@my.webpage), September 25, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, CaliforniaLet's try that again.
I have argued elsewhere, in a thread that touched on Certification of Programmers that standards are not always a good thing and that, in fact, in this case the fact that there was a standard (ie the two digit year), is what got us into this trouble. If there are many companies across a broad range of industries implementing code developed in one shop, such as SAP, then we're setting us up for the same kind of trouble again down the road.
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 25, 1999.