Something you might want to knowgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Found a forum that had this posted on it - thought you regulars might want to see it.
We are rolling out a new package at the client site this weekend, and that necessitated me going into the office. While I was there, I heard laughing and snorting coming from one of the cubes. About five or six of the programmers in my department were looking at the Time Bomb 2000 web site and making fun of it. That I can understand- if you're a technical person, Time Bomb is pretty amusing. We started talking about TEOTWAWKI, and one of the guys loaded a web page which was full of doom and gloom predictions, riddled with technical errors, inaccurancies, unsubstantiated rumors, and out and out lies. He very proudly proclaimed that he had produced the website and was publishing it on a number of boards, getting hits left and right. He said it amused him to think of people actually believing what he had written and using it to fuel the Y2K hype. The other engineers thought this was funny as heck, and started talking about other sites that they believe were started as jokes but were now being taken seriously (one of the guys claimed to know for a fact that Jim Lord is pulling people's legs, and used the fact that he lied about his web site hosting as proof). I didn't think that was funny at all, and I said so. When I called them on it, one of the engineers actually said, "Aw, come on! If you can't make fun of the morons and conspiracy theorists, who can you make fun of?"
-- eyes open (Justpassing@through.com), October 17, 1999
And where was this forum?
-- (email@example.com), October 17, 1999.
-- eyes open (Justpassing@through.com), October 17, 1999.
Hey, come on now. You guys have had just as much fun as I have jabbering back and forth. Its all been in good fun. Hell, I know of some people that even take this stuff seriously. Well, back to reality, I've got a deadline to meet real soon now, real soon.
-- rdwhite (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 17, 1999.
It's because of that type of person, with that type of attitude, that the Y2K problem exists in the first place. Let them laugh now. Their quota of ridicule is just about expired. 11 weeks
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (email@example.com), October 17, 1999.
I wrote that not two hours ago. For the record, I have over twenty years experience in IT, specifically with Mainframes, and I don't believe there will be any type of problems with Y2K whatsoever. I do however think it's mean to make fun of people who have been deluded into thinking Y2K means the end. Sort of like throwing rocks at puppies.
-- Modem Butterfly (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 17, 1999.
You mainframers think you run the free world or something. Let me give you a heads up from the oilpatch. I'm in it. I work in it every day. I know the people who're in charge of fixing Y2K at some BIG old oilfirms. Some are excellent, some are pretty good, some suck beyond belief.
I'll let all you big brains figure out which one's are which.
As for the big-brainers who felt y2k would be "no big deal" the laws of survival may weed them out. Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing it. Fuckem.
-- Gordon (email@example.com), October 17, 1999.
To snort and chuckle at folks who are willing to admit that they don't know exactly what's going to take place in the next few months must mean that those that are amused must know without a doubt that there will be NO problems. Is that the case here? Please let them log on and fill us in. I'd appreciate it.
Before thinking we've all lost our minds, please know that my kids find great comfort in knowing they'll be taken care of whether it be blizzard...the hurricane now coming up the coast toward us...or our elec. company just being stupid yet again.
The people within these forums have given me a lot of good information in regards to establishing a pantry in my home that will be here for my lifetime. My kids have also stated they plan on having a pantry in their homes when they buy them. Glad to know I've helped provide some smiles.
-- beej (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 17, 1999.
I believe there is an orchestrated and informal effort to ridicule, debunk and delude folks providing and seeking accurate information on y2k.
Make sure what you read is consistant with the l00 day Senate report - the actual sector by sector details, not just the summary.
Then decide postings on any forum on the merits.
-- Leslie (***@***.net), October 17, 1999.
Does anybody know the statistics on Web TV users these days? You know those people who don't own computers, and are new to the Web?
Just wondering how many of them are out there who might fall for these cute little programmer "jokes" and wind up precipating the "panic" that people seem to fear so much?
I wonder. Indeed, I do.
-- Isthislike (email@example.com?), October 17, 1999.
My dear beej, (beej and the breakfast bunch? did I meet you in Evansville?) we have indeed logged on. And we are called names when we tell people why Y2K will NOT BE A MAJOR DISASTER.
Gee, wonder why more CS people and Engineers don't log in? Maybe they come in, look around, see what the people here are DETERMINED to believe, and leave?
Crap, I work for the Army Corps of Engineers. I have the opportunity to talk to DOZENS of certified, professional engineers. Want to know the consensus about Y2K? Few to no failures outside the financial arena.
Why would I lie about such a thing? Believe me, if I was in the pay of the government as a shill, I would NEVER log in from a govt. IP address. Which I am not right now, as I am at home. But I have in the past.
This idea that everyone is lying or sucking wind except for a tiny handful of people, MANY of whom have moderated their Y2K positions in the last few months, just doesn't hold much water.
-- Paul Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 17, 1999.
I can understand where you're coming from. I've been a programmer for more than 15 years (banks, brokerages, development tools, etc) and in the beginning everyone one of my associates felt that Y2K wasn't going to be a big deal. Then I asked them how much *research* they had done and the answer was always "none, I just read the headlines".
Once I gave them links, articles, 10-Q statements, etc. to research and asked them to match that up with their own IT experiences they *ALL* started prepping (all but one actually, he plans to 'roll with the punches'). These are not dumb people. Like everyone else they were just busy and thought it was all being dealt with.
How much actual *research* have you and your buddies done? Or do you just "read the headlines".
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), October 17, 1999.
I'm curious about the age group of these people-20's,30's,40's ??
-- Sam (Gunmkr52@aol.com), October 17, 1999.
"like throwing rocks at puppies"???!!!! Butterfly, did you know that you are one sick asshole?
-- King of Spain (email@example.com), October 17, 1999.
What goes round comes round, in spades!
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), October 17, 1999.
Gee thanks, Paul Davis, for your completely OBJECTIVE AND UNBIASED report of what those dozens of professionals think. I mean, the fact that you are the frigging genius that runs the "Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot" forum would NEVER interfere with your objectivity, would it? You pathetic piece of crap.
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 17, 1999.
First somebody (eyes open) posts an inflammatory message copied from a poster (Modem Butterfly) on a web board I've never heard of (One By One). Then, lo and behold! It's a freakin' miracle! The flamer him/her/it self (Modem Butterfly) shows up HERE for the very first time, with Paul Davis in hot pursuit. Just how many forums and multiple personalities do Madam Paul and the Debonkers require to satiate their hatred and viciousness?
Please, folks, ******Don't Feed The Trolls******
-- (OhFerPetesS@ke.com), October 17, 1999.
As I have told you before KOS, I don't run BFI. It runs itself. Admitted, I can telnet into the server and help try to fix problems. But it isn't my server, I just have (well, share) an (administrators) account on it.
As for my research on Y2K - known about the problem since 86, looked into it HARD for the last couple years. Pity most of you guys don't know more computer science or engineering, otherwise you would know most of this stuff is being hyped beyond belief.
Frankly, I got bored with the whole thing about three months ago. But I have endured enough abuse to keep me in for the long haul, getting a laugh out of the excuses when 1/1/2000, 1/4/2000, 4/1/2000 and so forth go by without much in the way of real trouble.
You see, Cory H., Ed Y., JoAnn Slaven and the rest were perfectly correct when they stated FLATLY that a large percentage of Y2K problems would manifest themselves pre 2000. Absolutely correct. I have NEVER denied this. Lowball estimate is for 25% of Y2K to be over right now. High end runs as high as 50% and up. The infrastructure can certainly stand three times the puny number of failures we have experienced so far. So, using THE VERY SAME LOGIC PUSHED BY CORY H. AND ED YOURDON LAST YEAR, Y2K WILL NOT BE A LARGE EVENT! Go look up the chart Cory put in his WRP sometime about July of 98 - that is a valid chart. The numbers are not exactly what I would have used, but they are in the ballpark.
So why are these people still out there pushing TEOTW, or at least a ten year depression? Beats the crap out of me! Draw your own conclusions.
-- Paul Davis (email@example.com), October 17, 1999.
The only good thing about Y2K is that it will squash smug, arrogant sanctimonious people like Paul Davis.
-- cody varian (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 17, 1999.
And another person rings in without a clue. I don't know who Modem Butterfly is. It isn't me.
-- Paul Davis (email@example.com), October 17, 1999.
Paul Davis, you have just 75 days left to spew your crap before the real crap hits the fan. Have fun.
-- Ohio Bob (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 18, 1999.
Y2K was NEVER about a bunch of smug Mainframers running their BEANCOUNTER programs. Never!!
Large Scale Embedded Systems do NOT exhibit the Jo Anne Effect. Come January...
THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL FAIL!!!
Take that you puppy stoning SOB's!
-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), October 18, 1999.
I just invited the folks at network54.com over for a chat. <:)=
-- Sysman (email@example.com), October 18, 1999.
OOOOOHHHHHHHH Mommy!! They are swearing!!! Yes there are some "system" problems.
I have spent my life looking at something, mainframe, TV, PC, perifials, visual systems, vacuum cleaners, (neighbors love me) clotes dryers (the most simple device in your house), washing machines, cars, hydraulic systems, pneumatic systems, mechanical assemblies, radar's, flight instruments, toys etc. etc. and figuring out what is wrong with them and fixing them.
I do not know everything about everything, I know enough of the basics of all of these things to be able to "troubleshoot" and find the problem and fix it. When I discovered Y2K on the web I read of all the different potential problems and set out to troubleshoot and find the real problems and discount the ones that were not, in reality, a problem.
Guess you could say I set out to troubleshot Y2K.
I got one of the lists of potential problems and took one area at a time and delved into it. Building management systems, fleets and cars, nuclear power plants etc. and left a lot of areas in which others were working to them, while checking their results.
A good troubleshooter knows knows how to go about finding the problem. A troubleshooter may know what the problem is from experience and go directly to it and fix it. But that is boring.
The challange and fun (it is enjoyable to me) is tracking down and fixing the difficult problems.
If the troubleshooter does not know what the problem is the first thing that is done is to eliminate what the problem is not. I have stood looking at equipment for a long time and had someone ask me why I wasn't doing anything. I was.
Troubleshooting is a logical activity. It is based on facts, not conjecture. I was going through the possible causes and eliminate the non possibilities. Then I would get to work checking a few or a lot of areas of possibilities and eliminating most of those, until I had narrowed down the "good" possibilities.
The more I eliminated, the more focused I became on the areas that were potential true causes. That is when the real work begins. It takes time, it takes patience and assuming is a mistake. Never assume. Never get so cocky that you think you know what the answer is until you have fixed it and checked it.
There are as many different ways to check the results of your work as there are problems to be found and fixed.
Most of them are easy and fast. Fix, check and get the equipment back up and running. Every day thing. Easy. If you know what you are doing. Impressive to someone who Doesn't know how to do it. Experience teaches you new clues to look for, new areas to discount next time.
Problems needing to be troubleshot and fixed if they show up after the rollover is a real good possibility. The same as any time equipment is turned on after a weekend. Just that the possibility is greater. But there are people like me who, to whom this is a normal occurrence and who will be able to do what we always do.
Troubleshoot, fix and check the problems and get the equipment up and running again.
We have one advantage, we will have the possible areas narrowed down because we know what to look for.
-- Cherri (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 18, 1999.
Just wondering Cherri - are there thousands of you out there? If not, looks like you are gonna get spread pretty thin.
-- CSL (Canemail@example.com), October 18, 1999.
Tell me Bob, are you going to continue posting 77 days from now and take your share of crow? Or are you going to change your handle and keep right on with the sanctimonious personal attacks?
Of course you can take one of the other outs. Claim you NEVER made any remarks about failures occuring on 1/1/2000, and run along from there about how all the REAL action will happen post July. Then fade out and slowly quit posting. Or you can point to failures in other countries, if any, and whoop it up.
It will be funny how that one will work, BTW. Here we have a bunch of people who have been yelling that the 'three days of trouble' idea Mr. K. has pushed is a bad idea. Well, I will go on record as saying I don't expect to hear of ANY power outages in the US (DUE TO Y2K) of longer than a couple hours duration on 1/1/2000. And I will flatly say there absolutely WON'T be any longer than 24hrs, again DUE TO Y2K. Preparing for hurricanes or earthquakes makes sense - but I can't see much sense in this 'store a year of food' idea that so many over here push as a MINIMUM. (Please don't post that tired saw about 'I can eat my preps'. If you are buying grain and such, you won't. Grinding flour is fun the first few times, after that, it is a bore. You will buy bread like everyone else. That's human nature. And church food pantries won't take wheat berries, at least the ones I have been connected with would not.)
Foreign countries? As I say, I don't work there. So I am reluctant to make predictions about things I haven't seen. But I doubt their engineers are any less competent than ours when it comes to keeping the lights on. As you say, we'll see.
-- Paul Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 18, 1999.
-- Max Dixon (email@example.com), October 18, 1999.
I've seen Modem Butterfly and her comments on other forums... maybe if we swat at her she'll go away.
(don't feel trolls or butterflies)
-- just me (Hadenuf@oh.brother), October 18, 1999.
If all of this is just a cruel joke will you explain to me why billions of dollars are being spent to correct this"hoax"? Us stupid nieve people out here are pondering this thought and want to have you respond to this question, Mr. eyes open.
-- See (Y2KEYES@open.com), October 18, 1999.
This thread wasn't started by me.
Get your own handle and keep your...
-- eyes_open (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 18, 1999.
Good comments Paul, thank you.
The problem, however, is that I look at the same available information, and come to exactly the opposite conclusion: that problems are widespread, that much has been spent - but not enough to eliminate enough problems to avoid major troubles; that some has been tested - but so little has been adequately tested that unexpected failures will be widespread; and that there has been all hype and only hype from the government in a single and sole effort to keep people from withdrawing money from the banks.
That message has been the sole "hype" going on. People (North included) can come to different conclusions, but the government's conclusions are not supported by anything except wishful thinking - and their single-minded determination to protect the banks and their current political reputations.
At the expense of - perhaps - all else.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (email@example.com), October 18, 1999.
If you think that is the only cubicle where that is happening, think again.
Don't you ever wonder about those "server too busy" messages? No way they are generated by the handful of unemployed losers that hang here 24/7. And the ppl that are calling in here are NOT doing research, they are laughing there fool heads off at the loony circus!
-- ROTFLMAO (LAUGH@LAUGH.LAUGH), October 18, 1999.
You still fail to understand that "eating crow" next year is something many like me see as a welcome luxury. This may indeed be read as either a literal or figurative statement.
However, where will you be if the situation is far worse than even we could imagine? Certainly, if we didn't imagine it they you didn't come even close to considering it.
So, where will you be as one of the people who pushed personal prepping as non-essential? I say you will be at a minimun in some legal peril if not personal danger. Why? Because you may be responsible for giving people a false impression of the dangers posed by y2k disruption.
Will there be disruption. Absolutely. How can I say absolutely? Because global research by the same government you work for has reached this conclusion.
How do you make your money Paul? Seems you have far too much time to post for someone with a full time job. Should the question be "who do you work for?"
Regardless, you should take a look at testimony given on October 13 before the Senate. Hell, why don't you do some research and read all of the testimony given to the Senate. I'll share a little here Given by Howard Rubin which you can find at http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/st991013rubin.htm;
Testimony of Howard Rubin
Chair, Department of Computer Science, Hunter College of CUNY
CEO Rubin Systems
META Group Research Fellow
YES Corps of IY2KCC
October 13, 1999
"100 Days Away" Year 2000 survey results
September 13, 1999 ________________________________________________________________
The 100 Days Away/3Q1999 Rubin Systems/Cap Gemini America sponsored Year 2000 survey results have been compiled. The demographics of the survey cover a profile of responses of 156 Fortune 500 organizations on Year 2000 issues and post Year 2000 directions. At a high level, the key results of this survey indicate:
Year 2000 projects are proceeding well with a big push in the area of continuity planning. Although many companies will not have 100% their systems converted they do not seem to believe that this poses a major business risk. Business "complacency" seems to be setting in.
Meanwhile costs have increased due to unexpected contingency planing, command center, and IV&V costs. An interesting issue has to do with the fact that most companies have not decided how they will redeploy their "heads down" Year 2000 staff. Managers and project leaders seem to be protected however.
* There has been some budget "creep" upward in total Year 2000 spending. The primary drivers of this budget movement are:
Budget Area Pct Indicating as Cost Driver Contingency Planning Costs 26%
Need for IV&V 24% Command Centers 20% Program Management Costs 10% Hardware upgrades 8% Conversion Costs 6% Personnel Costs 6%
* 48% of those surveyed now claim that it is very likely that they will not do business with non-Y2K compliant suppliers/providers (up from 36% in July). However about one-third of the companies do not consider this to be a major business issue.
* 98% of those surveyed believe it is not likely that they will sell off or reorganize part of their businesses because of Y2K concerns.
* 80% expect to use Y2K compliance as part of their marketing message.. this is down from 88% in July.
* Business partner and vendor compliance cooperation still remain as big issues with the level of cooperation continuing to decrease.
* 87% of companies expect to provide Y2K information to their customers.
* Continuity planning is becoming more of a joint business/IT effort (90% of those surveyed).. the number of IT organizations doing it alone has dropped to 4%. 98% have determined that their existing continuity plans support less than 25% of their Y2K needs.
* 68% of contingency plans now involve a possible service shutdown or a degradation of service in response to a Y2K problem after the date rollover.
* The need to increase staff to support continuity planning has been indicated by 85% of those surveyed. The staff assigned to such work is rating it as more "exciting" than previous Y2K systems-related work.
Post Y2K commitments to staff are an issue:
* 82% have plans to redeploy their program managers
* 66% have plans to redeploy their project leaders
* only 26% have plans to redeploy their conversion and assessment personnel
* While 12% of those surveyed indicate plan slippage is increasing and 10% indicate a decrease, 78% claim that slippage has stabilized
* 56% of those surveyed now expect 100% of their systems to be compliant by year end (up from 48% in July). 38% of those surveyed expect that 76% to 99% of their systems will be compliantthat leaves 6% of those surveyed with less than 75% of their systems planned to be compliant by year end. However, overall 82% of those surveyed do not expect the non-compliant systems to pose a significant business risk.
* 82% of those surveyed have had a Y2K related failure. 56% of those failures were caused by systems that have not been replaced yet; 44% were caused by systems that have been remediated. The dominant failure type is a miscalculation. 99% of those surveyed expect such problems to continue to increase to year end.
* Key post-rollover Y2K related priorities include event management, conversion of secondary systems, catching up with backlogged work, and redeploying staff. 98% expect to build a new strategic IT plan, 60% expect to reorganize IT and 60% expect to start focusing more on e-strategy.
It appears that Y2K has inhibited progress in key IT initiative areas:
* 82% indicate it has inhibited ERP projects
* 78% indicate that have delayed outsourcing decisions
* 25% indicate that they have delayed CRM projects
* 22% indicate they have delayed SFA projects
* 18% and 15% respectively indicate that Y2K has delayed e-business BtoB and BtoC projects respectively
Paul, what the f*ck do you know that you can share here with us to refute these numbers?
Paul, what the f*ck can you share that will refute the testimony given by experts in positions to know much more than you.
Eh, Paul. You can't refute anything and neither can any of your cronies. So, go f*ck yourselves and stop wasting time here.
I'm so very sick and tired of "debate" with less 74 days. If you can't provide any real information or hard evidence to support YOUR position and refute the positions of people who do MUCH more, in-depth study than you can, the don't bother posting here.
Or, maybe you aren't wasting your time and this is how you make your money. Ar
-- Paul Davis is a (big firstname.lastname@example.org asshole), October 18, 1999.
I know I'm putting myself out there...don't everyone (on all sides) spit at me at once.
I'm sure everyone in here has read up on the subject of y2k for so long you're sick to death of reading WHAT y2k even means. I've determined what preps I feel I should make and read the posts that interest me, or offer some info. re: preps that I can use. I figure everyone who's posted on this thread has done the same. I've read about the "freedom of speech" often in these forums and figure everyone's entitled to their opinions. So why all the anger? I'm afraid I don't understand why. I appreciate hearing from all sides. It's just my nature.
-- beej (email@example.com), October 19, 1999.
beej, you should look into the archives for some intel on Paul Davis. He's a kind of a hot-button subject around here who has a very clear agenda. He isn't interested in the truth.
-- Paul Davis is a (big firstname.lastname@example.org asshole), October 19, 1999.
I suspect he isn't interested in women either.
-- Will continue (email@example.com), October 19, 1999.
wow. those last few posts are nothing like personal attacks are they? Why is an ignorant, 21 year old haidressing slut allowed to post such bullshit, while this post will most likely be deleted? Will the moderators "out" the poster who signs with "Paul Davis is a big fat @-hole"?
You motherfuckers are EARNING your crow eating party next year. The more vile and abusive you are, the more the "pollies" are going to shove your stupid logic and predictions up your own asses.
-- Kiss my fucking Ass (you firstname.lastname@example.org hipocrites!), October 19, 1999.
"Oh my, you ARE a vulgarian aren't you?" - John Cleese's character from the movie 'A Fish Called Wanda'
sunnin' on the porch...
-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), October 19, 1999.
For all those 'people', nay 'degenerates' who falsely post for the sheer twisted pleasure that it brings to you, realize this. You are, by no account, any better or superior to those of us who post in good faith. If anything, you remind me of the stories of the Death Camp Gaurds, who tortured the prisoners for their own sick twisted needs. What possesses people to do this? I really cannot say. But understand this, you 'false prophets' may wind up paying the ultimate sacrifice if you are truly wrong.
Tell us then, what it's like to watch your children die before your eyes from starvation....and let us have the laugh at your expense.
-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.
my, how tempers flare.
Paul is a grandfather.
-- lisa (email@example.com), October 19, 1999.
I haven't been a slut since 1975, back in my Liberal days! ROTFLMAO
-- Will continue (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 19, 1999.
My forum had been mentioned above and the word was passed along to me by one of the regulars on my site. At the present moment my forum is down which is titled "Free Speech for Onebyone and all Free People".
There have been people coming to my forum saying that is it being spread over the net that Me and my IT friends have set up the site to spread lies and laugh at the people who come there with concerns about possible problems from Y2K rollover. This is not true.
This post to try to clear some mistaken thoughts about my site.
I started the site last spring for the purpose of Free Speech like in a town square. I was tired of going to other sites and the people who had them thought of them more as their living rooms and you could not speak out a different opinion than was the offical party line.
I have my opinions and I believe everyone should have theirs and wanted a place where people could go and speak about what issues they wanted to so long as they were not vulgar as I am a Chrisitan and do not want to see vulgararity. Hopefully, people will discuss what they want to in the little town square I have built, keeping in mind children and Moms who will wash your mouth out with soap may be lurking there so keep it clean.
The people who visit my site are for the most part women over the age of 35. We do have a few men stop by now and then and like their comments. The people who post there are for the most part concerned about Y2K and are preparing as I am, when I can, being a single Mom it is tight:-) I HAVE never made fun of anyone who is preparing and in fact I do not like it when anyone makes fun of someone who is because they are just doing what they feel is best for their families and I can respect that.
I am sorry for the length of this post please bear with me.
Modem Butter fly and I in no way corespond and in fact I do not even agree with most of what she posts but it is free speech so I do not censor it like I would vulgar remarks. Modem Butterfly posted the post about her techie jerks making lying site and laughing at the people on my forum too. I was angry and shot off a post back and even said something to the effect re: conspiricy plots, that anyone who does not believe there are conspiricies is just ignorant. (of course we all know ignorant definition means "uninformed , uneducated) well she did not like that at all and a there was an tangle with her and another one of the posters who has been with me since the beginning, and of course being who I am I stood my ground:-)
My site is now down, though one poster said it was spread that I am IT I can honestly say I am not. My education is in distribution and any little bit I have learned regarding the net, or other software and general PC operations I have learned from an intro to computer in college and self taught myself the rest. Believe me compared to what you programmers know it would fill a thimble to your swimming pool.
I do not know if some of the jerks from Modem Butterflys employ have back doors to network 54 and have done something or network 54 just has some unrelated problems. Hopefully my site will be back up soon. Ya'll are all welcome to come discuss anything you like one town sqaure or Y2K or whatever if you like.
Just wanted to clear any unfounded rumours.
obo aka "Onebyone"
-- I am "webmaster" at Onebyone forum (email@example.com), October 20, 1999.
If you go to this link, you'll find that Network 54 apologized for a melted processor, which is why your webpage and others were down the other day. While I do like to think of myself as a good programmer, there is simply no way that I could blow out a heatsink and melt a processor. Naturally, I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology. Here is the link in case you can't find it on your own.
And here is the text, in case the link suddenly stops working:
Dear Network54 Community Member,
First, let me say "I'm sorry." Clinton couldn't do it but I can. Because I mean it. Our server was down for several hours, and while it is running (faster) now, some older messages will not show until our data recovery efforts are complete. So if your login, forum, chatroom, or group is missing, we are working to hard have them restored. Please accept our sincerest appologies. It has been a real education in Murphy's Law.
We don't know when Murphy got started, but it was before we woke up Tuesday morning. Apparently Murphy started sometime on Monday, causing some overheating in our main server and fried one of the processors in the machine. But the machine, a real trooper, died and restarted itself without using the extra crispy Pentium. We noticed the site was slow, but couldn't figure out why. By Tuesday, it was dead.
Chris received the page, couldn't log in, and so headed down to Orange County to see the server face to face. He called me with the news: the server was smoking. Not the 'Pentium II with stangely colored lab coats' kind of smoking in the TV commercials. Real smoke. Not a lot, but enough by this point to have fried all the new components we installed. I guess I really wasn't motivated to go to the gym anyway....
Trying everything we could think of to get the network up and running, we used our backup server to take over for the main server. But there was one problem. That server had a backup from Oct 8. The main server had the live database as well as a continuous backup written to a separate disk. We figured one of disks had to be OK, so we hooked them up to the backup server and was ready to go.
Never hook up a SCSI disk to a motherboard with a built in SCSI adapter right after the drive came out of a smoking box. It will give you two smoking boxes.
So we enlisted the help of local data recovery experts, and Chris went to drive the disks over there. Of course you know the car wouldn't start, and I was just started on my hour and a half drive down by this point.
A couple of weeks ago we were real worried that our servers might fall in an earthquake. Taiwan had one. Mexico had one. Surely Los Angeles would soon follow. So we bought several cases for use in a rack system so our servers would not fall. Great idea, however the 7.0 eathquake hit this past weekend before we could install them. But we have them now!
In fact, our servers are installed in a pretty sturdy setup. But it took several trips to Frys Electronics paying more than online buying veterans are used to, in order to remake the insides of our servers. And it took time reinstalling the operating systems, services, and custom code. And new backup procedures.
So right now, 7:00am on Wednesday I think, the servers are up with new hardware running much faster than before. And by Friday we hope to have the missing messages installed. And we are now ready - come earthquake, fire, or high water.
Steven Roussey Network54 Corporation http://network54.com/
Network54 Corporation 5900 Wilshire Blvd. 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036
-- Modem Butterfly (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 20, 1999.
WOW! I've seen blown transformers and heard, smelt and watched caps burn, but I don't believe I've ever seen a heatsink blow out. Must be all that microcircuitry and the mercury from the temperature contol module. *evil grin*
-- Cherri (email@example.com), October 26, 1999.