Subject:	Here's another, -bksie- Was: y2k - taking a chances
Date:	1999/10/01
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

Yo -bksie-  They're talking doomer again.  Banks "Get it" but the superprogrammers on S/390 are saying things like: "Do you have a current resume?" and "It's getting pretty hot around here these days."   Will you pollies get with the program, please.  The work did not get done. I told you that a year ago.  A small percentage of the 50,000 IBM-style mainframes are in fine shape.  A few hundred possibly.   In most cases, the big shops right-sized so much in the 1980's that there wasn't anyone left with two good synapses to rub together.   The ones in worse shape are those that went balls to the wall and bet the firm that some wacky new technology would replace the legacy system. We've seen several reports about SAP flops, Peoplesoft vaporware (the University problem), and other situations that will hit the wall in 91 days.   Even the self proclaimed best of the best such as Monkey County, Maryland, are having pre-Y2K problems, problems that take months to resolve and millions of dollars.  These are simpoole early warnings. Sure, the Monkey's building permits flub or phone problem aren't show stoppers.  I'm only a few miles away from the Monkey and I'm, like, so what.   The problem is, at the rollover, the system failures, flubs, wackiness will change from sporadic to pervasive.    Hurricane Floyd hit us with some wind and a lot of rain.  About 1,000,000 people lost power for half a day to a day,  we were in this group.  A smaller group estimated to be several thousand, lost power for a week.   We took several power outages, two were about 6 hours, one was a full day.  Not a huge problem. I have a laptop, two LED flashlights (thanks Hank.), batteries, UPS, Krypton-lights ($6.99 at Home Depot), a battery TV, 2 meters, etc. The refrigerator stayed cold enough, we didn't need heat or air conditioning.   The power surges killed a computer (an old one that I was about to replace) and a VCR (a $99 2 head, 4 event model, not a big loss.)    These failures are irritants.  The Y2K look-aheads are this kind of problem.  I'm not saying that I expect power failures (see Rick Cowles' for guidance on power risks.)  I can't predict the specifics.   The main event will be different.  The failures will be extended, persisting, and pervasive.  You will not be able to avoid these.   At 91 days, there isn't time to prepare properly starting from zero.  At 91 days, you're looking at a "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you" situation.  That's the bad news for those who have been in denial until now.   At 91 days, the good news is that it's probably time to stop worrying. Anything now is just finessing. Sure, top off the bins, fill in the gaps but whatever's gonna happen, is gonna happen.   On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:03:55, willjamu@mindspring.com (James A. Williams) wrote:   > dadam@GRATEX.SK (Daniel Adam) wrote: > > It all depends on the code and the file structures and well as > interfaces to other systems among other things. Do you have a current > resume? > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I would like to hear from you guys, during the y2k readiness efforts, how > >> many of you had to cope with software that is labeled by it's producent as > >> being NOT READY. Specifically, is anyone outthere working for company > >> where they use so old versions that are not supported anymore. Did any of > >> the shops preferred not upgrading to y2k ready versions, but rather do the > >> y2k testing and save the money ? Specifically I'm interested in financial > >> institutions. > >> > >> This sounds probably very strange, but I just got hold of the list of ( > >> our customer ) software and realized that all but one compnents are not > >> y2k ready, not even suported anymore. They apparently rely on their own > >> testing, plus consultants' attest. Even with all the money for the > >> upgrades, I think it's not feasable to buy, test and make all the > >> transitions to a new y2k-ready versions in time. Not that they chose that > >> path, they are not willing to shell that kind of money - they probably > >> didn't upgrade the software for years. It's getting pretty hot around here > >> these days. > >> > >> Thanks for any comments > >> Please reply to: dadam@gratex.sk > >> > >> Daniel > >> > >> Daniel Adam > >> Gratex International > >> dadam@gratex.sk > >> www.gratex.sk > >>   So there it is, the S/390 mainframe world has come clean. "...it's not feasable to buy, test and make all the transitions to a new y2k-ready versions in time."   The superprogrammers who live and breath OS/390 and Enterprise systems are talking about unfixable Y2K problems, about bailing out of doomed companies.  It went from "how do I set up an LPAR" a month ago to "We gave up on trying to implement SAP" to this.   I've said it since the Day 500 DC Y2K Weather Report.  You've all had fair warning.  It's going to break.  It can't be fixed.    Those of you who listened to the polly-preaching,  don't blame the pollies. Perhaps the pollies were well intentioned. Perhaps they were malevolent. At this point, it doesn't matter.  The information is there for everyone to read. We are all responsible for where we are today.   While it is tempting to blame Kosky, Chicken-P-R, -bks-, JEM, CET-Poole, the fact is, they are just part of the open debate.  Everyone on both sides of the discussion knows all the points.   Something outside of all our experience is about to happen.  It will be interesting.    The WRPs (thanks WRP members) and other venues gave you a contrasting view. You got a look at the messages in the superprogrammer newsgroups a full year before they were written.  A full year's warning.  This is more than a fair head start.   In the year, you could have fixed your aging aunt's farm house, stocked the barn with supplies, added to the livestock,  purchased a weekend or retirement cabin and fixed it up, planted a garden or orchard.    We are each responsible for our preparation or lack there of.   Pollies, give it up. You're not arguing with me any more.  You really need to subscribe to the mainframe discussion list and give the S/390 superprogrammers a piece of your big polly brain.   Please, tell Dan and Jim and the others that they are just hyping the problem.   cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html 91 days. 

-- a (a@a.a), October 01, 1999

Answers

--a,

Thanks again for this post. When I begin to feel groggy from all the disconnect and disinformation being thrown about by Pollies at all levels, I read and ponder another Cory statement like above. It's as if I suddenly get another whiff of smelling salts and pop straight up in my chair. Cory has been clueing us in on the big iron for a long time now and the information, including that coming directly from IBM, just gets sadder and sadder. We should have been cheering on all the winners by this point in time. Instead, we hear about the losers, big losers, at the highest levels of government and business. Sigh.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 01, 1999.

No relatives on farms. Just gonna die. But it's been a great year. Better to die laughing and with eyes wide open ... :-)

-- Learned A Lot (allaha@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999.

I am a little confused - about the part about out running the bear.

I first heard this analogy as applied to a competitive situation where for me to succeed say in getting a customer's order I may not need to be perfect, rather I just have to be better than my competitor.

The confusing part of this when applied to Y2K is: To me it doesn't appear important whether I am better (say 75% ready) vs. another that is 60% ready. Y2K is more like a pass/fail test rather than a bell curve distribution. So... dividing all systems into only two populations - those that pass (are Y2K compliant or ready with sufficient contingency plans and work arounds to maintain a semblance of business continuity) versus thos that fail.

My reason for posting the above is to ask for some clarification - does anyone expect Y2K to be like grading on a curve. Aside from the Senate 100 day report that broke populations by risk exposure into groups with high, above average, average, below average and low expsoure. I did note the senate report did not identify any population as a zero exposure - so they must acknowledge that even the best of the best are still exposed to some risks.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), October 01, 1999.

I think what he means is, at this late date, you may not have time to prepare as well as you would like, but you'll still be light years ahead of folks that wait until mid Dec.

-- a (a@a.a), October 01, 1999.

Soooooooo,

The question in my mind is WHEN are these mainframe wizards, faced with impossible situations going to BOLT?

At what point do they realize, "We REALLY aren't going to make it"?

At what point (month?) do you just call in sick, OR go AWOL, or ??? And what effect will this have on the public at large?

Inquiring minds, like, want to know.

-- Greg (balzer@lanset.com), October 01, 1999.

Our local MVS wizard took off for Montana or Wyoming or some such wide open place about two months ago. Word was "he'd been planning to retire there for quite a while." Yep.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), October 02, 1999.

PROGRAMMERS READY TO DISAPPEAR -- THIS IS FOR YOU---

A Y2K Sanctuary

http:// www.hawaiinetdirectory.com/ halemana.html

-- Kona Kanaka (Kanaka@kona.maunakea), October 02, 1999.

The bear joke is a classic. Slightly modified goes as follows...

A GI and DGI in the woods see a bear. The GI starts putting on running shoes that he quietly pulls out of his backpack. The DGI says, "You don't think you can outrun that bear do you?" The GI responds, "I don't have to. I only have to outrun you."

On a more serious note, someone said it best in a previous thread when they referred to this whole experience as a real-life version of Conrads "Heart of Darkness".

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), October 02, 1999.

What if instead of it being like out-running a bear, it is more like out-swimming a tidal wave? You have to worry not only about the Big Wave coming, but about being dragged down by the poor swimmer behind you.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), October 02, 1999.