Having read the Essay By Mr. Way over the weekend, it was interesting to note that others had the exact same conclusion that I had about it. It was the most comprehensive,understandable,disturbing,thought provoking pieces of information I have read in eight months.

What I and obviously others took away from the essay was---basically it is much,much worse and more complex--(interelated) Than imagined. Even the fact that making things compliant would actually make things worse. From my view there was not one positive bit of information in the entire essay.

What I thought was really of interest was this Comment about banks:

"A LARGE BANK CAN HAVE 100,000 PROGRAMS THAT RUN ON 30 DIFFERENT PLATFORMS AND USE 50 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES (TYPE,VINTAGE AND COMPILER MANUFACTURER). MAKE SEVERAL THOUSAND CODE CHANGES ACROSS THAT BASE IN SOMETHING AS UBIQUITOUS AS DATE PROCESSING IN SOMETHING LIKE --BANKING--OPERATIONS. ASSUME YOU DETECTED ALL DATES (YOU WOULD BE LUCKY IF YOU FOUND 90%) AND MADE MODIFICATIONS PERFECTLY (HAVE THE BEST PEOPLE BEEN THE ONES DOING THIS ALL ALONG?; DO YOU HAVE THE BEST TOOLS?; AND THAT BANK IS ON-LINE THROUGH THE FED TO ALL OTHER BANKS. HOW MANY ERRORS WILL THERE BE AFTER MAKING THOUSANDS OF CHANGES TO A VERY LARGE 'SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS' THAT NO ONE REALLY UNDERSTANDS IN DETAIL?

Ok, --what does this say to you? well it tells me alot!! and there is much,much more in the essay. READ IT.

So the next day Mr. May writes this post Script. About blah,blah,optimist etc. unbelievable.

Far be it for Gary North to let the obvious contradiction slide!!!!

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), November 03, 1999

Answers

I read the whole Dale Way article (twice) and I'd say I "got" about 90% of it. I also agreed with most of it, but don't feel it was *totally* pessimistic. I also read both of the TB2000 threads on the matter and believe a lot of good issues were brought up. I was going to write a long post on the obvious disconnect of the follow-up response - when I logged into GN this morning it looks like he beat me to it! I don't have either report with me now, but I remember his first paragraph of the follow-up was EXCELLENT, but the second or third was a TOTAL DISCONNECT. I also remember he accuses Yourdon of being too vague with his assessments and/or predictions, but he (Way) too is very vague, both in the original post and in the follow-up. I also feel too much emphasis was placed on the Titanic/burn in Hell ending -- these are his own feelings as opposed to the excellent evidence he uses throught the body of the paper.

-- Jim (x@x.x), November 03, 1999.

"What I and obviously others took away from the essay was---basically it is much,much worse and more complex--(interelated) Than imagined."

I would suggest that you may have approached the essay LOOKING for bad news. "Even the fact that making things compliant would actually make things worse."

Not fact. Opinion.

"From my view there was not one positive bit of information in the entire essay."

Not even the part where he dissed embedded systems as a source of trouble. Especially in light of the fact THAT is his particular area of expertise. (I'd submit that software definitely ain't his area of expertise.)

"ASSUME YOU DETECTED ALL DATES (YOU WOULD BE LUCKY IF YOU FOUND 90%)"

OK.

"AND MADE MODIFICATIONS PERFECTLY (HAVE THE BEST PEOPLE BEEN THE ONES DOING THIS ALL ALONG?);"

The modifications are pretty trivial. The "BEST PEOPLE" would be/have been bored to tears doing nothing but Y2K changes for any length of time. I certainly was - and I ain't even the best people.

"DO YOU HAVE THE BEST TOOLS?;"

You have the tools thru which your system was created and maintained up till now. All of a sudden they're not good enough?

"AND THAT BANK IS ON-LINE THROUGH THE FED TO ALL OTHER BANKS. HOW MANY ERRORS WILL THERE BE AFTER MAKING THOUSANDS OF CHANGES TO A VERY LARGE 'SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS' THAT NO ONE REALLY UNDERSTANDS IN DETAIL?"

How many errors are there NOW? I guarantee there ARE errors, but the system stubbornly fails to grind to a halt. Obviously, there's a degree of fault-tolerance in any computer system, micro or macro. In essence, Y2k is merely a test of that degree.

Mr. Way has just presented a string of conjectures and what ifs, without attempting to assess their probabilities or effects - I expect MUCH better analysis from any engineer, and much, much better from one in his position.

"I also feel too much emphasis was placed on the Titanic/burn in Hell ending..."

As, I assume, did Mr. Way - hence the backpedaling P.S. Honestly, I've never been able to reconcile the little "burn in Hell" bit with the rest of the essay. Maybe it was just his way of saying how strongly he felt about the whole remediation vs. contingency planning argument. But he should've known that a lot of folks would latch on to those words...

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

I think the simplest and most devastating part of the whole article was the fallacy of "compliance." The rest was all simply well articulated delineation of the dangers of over specialization and the illusion of seperate entities.

It was extremely well written with brains and emotion.

Anyone who doesn't feel strongly about this issue is a fool. Anyone who pretends they are not concerned is a liar and/or an idiot.

Perhaps it was too well written. Perhaps Mr.Way was pressured to soften the blow. It matters not. The myth of Y2k compliancy is out of the bag.

-- Dolma Lhamo (I'm@nonymous.now), November 03, 1999.

RC,

You said:

"I would suggest that you may have approached the essay LOOKING for bad news".

Are you serious??? Is this your attempt at humour??

RC---at this point--I would like to suggest that anyone with half a brain that reads and contemplates the essay in its entirety cannot possibly come away with any positives regarding Y2K.

For you to imply that I approached it looking for bad news, is ridiculous. I approached it looking for information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The information that I gleaned from it was disturbing. Anyone that can say they read the essay and come away feeling like y2k aint no big deal is an imbecile. It is just that simple!!

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

I know alot of engineers have complained in the past about the IEEE being "a day late and a dollar short" regarding Y2k.

Dale Way's essay strikes me much the same way. He makes some good points, and it would have been relevant 6-12 months ago. Now, he's in essence talking about water already over the dam.

His main point seems to be that targetting compliance, via remediation or replacment, for individual systems was misguided, while integrated testing was ignored.

Obviously, his points are valid. Replacing vast numbers of systems causes many problems, both within the individual systems, and as they interface to others. Modifying existing systems also run the same risks, especially when date expansion is used. Lack of integration testing can cause enormous numbers of errors.

I know I sound like a broken record, but this essay essentially further confirms the arguments I've made about error rates already experienced. Because the overwhelming majority of errors and problems that Way is addressing have already occurred. He is speaking of errors encountered when new systems are implemented into an existing set of interfacing systems, or modifications to these systems occur.

These errors occur when the systems are implemented. They are not stored until the rollover. The interfaces won't change on rollover; dates won't magically be expanded, formats magically changed, etc. These changes have already occurred.

On rollover, the potential exists for the individual systems to fail. Which is exactly the point of targetting individual system compliance or readiness.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 03, 1999.

Hoff:

Surprise, surprise...we agree on this. [grin]

I've presented the original link (including the P.S.) to the Debunker forum in the hope that someone with more experience in embedded systems might respond to these claims. For myself, I found Way presenting both facts and fallacies regarding software. Much of what he said was true in that 2-digit dates needn't be changed in many areas. On the other hand, he addressed the 2-digits interfacing with expected 4-digits (or vice-versa) as though this were a problem that wouldn't surface until 2000. ALL of the software I've seen remediated has been moved back into production. If 2-digits versus 4- digits were a problem, they failed ALREADY and were fixed. If YOUR system is expecting 99 and I'm sending you 1999, we notice that NOW!

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), November 03, 1999.

From mays essay:

IN any case,Y2K, the Y2K Problem or the Y2K crisis does not "end" at any discrete point in calendar time, nor will the efforts at prevention: they must continue for elements whose domain of applicability is entered as time goes on,as 'todays date' moves forward. Like a quantum mechanical particle. Y2K exists as a probability wave that peaks sometime around 1/1/00 falls off on both sides and only collapses to a point when an indivindual technology element is pinned down and "measured". There is no "end-game".

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

D.B.

I don't know your technical expertise, so I can't comment on your understanding of what Mr. Way said. [Note: That is WAY...NOT May.] For those of us who have worked on remediation, however, the letter presented both facts and fallacies. Mr. Martin's interpretation of "more pessimistic than Yourdon" was disputed by Mr. Way in the P.S. This represents NO change of heart at all. I read the entire thing BEFORE reading the P.S., and saw NO compromise.

Your latest addition to this thread included the following:

"From mays essay: IN any case,Y2K, the Y2K Problem or the Y2K crisis does not "end" at any discrete point in calendar time, nor will the efforts at prevention: they must continue for elements whose domain of applicability is entered as time goes on,as 'todays date' moves forward. Like a quantum mechanical particle. Y2K exists as a probability wave that peaks sometime around 1/1/00 falls off on both sides and only collapses to a point when an indivindual technology element is pinned down and "measured". There is no "end-game". "

For the most part, this is true. 1/1/2000 will NOT reflect the end- game. This has been acknowledged by EVERYONE at this point. To suggest that there will be NO end, however, is fallacious.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), November 03, 1999.

"RC,

You said:

"I would suggest that you may have approached the essay LOOKING for bad news"."

Yes.

"Are you serious??? Is this your attempt at humour??"

Yes. No.

"RC---at this point--I would like to suggest that anyone with half a brain that reads and contemplates the essay in its entirety cannot possibly come away with any positives regarding Y2K."

I can't respond to this, as I have no recent X-rays or Catscans which indicate my current brain percentage. If I had to guess, I'd say I have, oh, somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80% of a brain. Keeps me breathin', though.

"The information that I gleaned from it was disturbing. Anyone that can say they read the essay and come away feeling like y2k aint no big deal is an imbecile. It is just that simple!!"

The "information" (as opposed to the opinion) contained in Way's piece is not disturbing, it is just information. The opinions he gives on connectivity and the futility of micro remediation are just that - opinions - and I disagree with them for the reasons I have given in this and earlier Way threads, as stated more eloquently by Hoff and Anita above.

Never said it "ain't no big deal" BTW.

Question for D.B. You quoted this piece of the Way essay:

"In any case,Y2K, the Y2K Problem or the Y2K crisis does not "end" at any discrete point in calendar time, nor will the efforts at prevention: they must continue for elements whose domain of applicability is entered as time goes on, as 'todays date' moves forward. Like a quantum mechanical particle. Y2K exists as a probability wave that peaks sometime around 1/1/00 falls off on both sides and only collapses to a point when an indivindual technology element is pinned down and "measured". There is no "end-game"."

I'd like to ask you, if you have a moment, to explain what you think Way is trying to say here, in something closer to plain English than he managed. (Not trying to set a trap for you or anything, scout's honor, I just don't want to put words in your mouth.)

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

Oh, I forgot to add:

"The myth of Y2k compliancy is out of the bag."

Dolma, "The myth of Y2k compliancy" has been one of the cornerstones of polly philosophy ever since the first, single-celled polly developed legs and crawled out of the primordial ooze.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

Anita, just so nobody gets the wrong idea, let's be clear: when you told Hoffy that for once the two of you agree, it was just for humor, right? Because the two of you almost always agree.

And the two of you usually are wrong. Like in this case, for instance. The only piece of good polly news worth touting is that Y2K problems -- WHICH ARE INDEED EXPECTED TO HAPPEN IN 2000 AND BEYOND -- may not arrive with such an overwhelming intensity right at the start of the new year. They may spread out a bit, giving more opportunity to manage them, since they may not all occur at once.

This has always been the worst fear: that Y2K problems will all come suddenly, overwhelming the ability to fix. This scenario gives some hope that things may be more controllable.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 03, 1999.

R.C.:

I have no clue who you are, but the polly evolutionary image has had me chuckling for a while now.

King:

If anyone here needs to 'fess, I'd have to volunteer YOU for the job. I've DONE software remediation, King. You've done nothing but look to Mr. North for whether what's been said is true or not. [Okay...I AM being unfair there. You HAVE been watching mud-wrestling videos, and you HAVE been soliciting opinions on mud-wrestling. I apologize for short-changing you in your Y2k remediation efforts, not to mention your outstanding contributions to this forum.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), November 03, 1999.

Anita, unfortunately your response is "textbook polly" -- bring up, out of thin air, Gary North; and also claim that to have a technical background in computers means that anyone who does not cannot possibly offer a credible opinion on Y2K. All the time COMPLETELY IGNORING the pertinent data at hand - in this case, in the form of Way's analysis.

In the first place, I rely on A LOT of sources in addition to North's www.garynorth.com web site. But, the polly drill is to always, always shoot the messenger.

In the second place, to quote a quotable quote: "Y2K is not rocket science. It is barely computer science." OK, I have never modified a COBOL program to change a 2-digit date field to 4-digits. Does that mean that I cannot comprehend the CONCEPT? Does that mean that I cannot see the IMPLICATION if testing is not done??

Frankly, I think many pollies who HAVE done code remediation per se nevertheless lack ANY ability to think through the actual non-technical issues that are just as much a part of Y2K as bit flipping. And a lot more important.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 03, 1999.

RC---

In any case,Y2K, the Y2K Problem or the Y2K crisis--(RC:Here Mr. Way is saying y2k is a crisis!! clear enough for you?)-- does not "end" at any discrete point in calendar time--(rc: Here Mr Way is saying this CRISIS does not have a finished time?),-- nor will the efforts at prevention:(RC: Here Mr. Way is saying the Efforts at preventing the above CRISIS will not end!)-- they must continue for elements whose domain of applicability is entered as time goes on, as 'todays date'--(RC: Here he is saying that with new compliancy that a clerk entering a two digit field could screw the whole deal)--- moves forward. Like a quantum mechanical particle. Y2K exists as a probability wave that peaks sometime around 1/1/00 falls off on both sides and only collapses to a point when an indivindual technology element is pinned down and "measured". There is no "end-game"."--(RC: here he is talking about the atomic aspect of interelatedness and how The Hoffs and Anita's of remediation have their prospective noses out their.....not considering that its not an independent situation but a holistic one!!

Any other questions?? Why don't you and Hoff and Anita read the whole essay and then shoot your opinions off!!

What a Joke!?????

You guys would refute God is he said you had a defective gene?

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

D.B.

Yes, I read the "whole" essay.

Did you? Do you understand what Way is talking about? Or did you pick out some phrases and words, and assume it must be Baaaaad?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 04, 1999.

"In any case,Y2K, the Y2K Problem or the Y2K crisis--(RC:Here Mr. Way is saying y2k is a crisis!! clear enough for you?)--"

I believe Mr.Way is merely referring to different ways of stating the problem, or more to the point, the different levels of seriousness people attach to it. That you take it as Way saying "it's a crisis!" again indicates to me that you're actively searching for the worst possible interpretation of the essay.

"... does not "end" at any discrete point in calendar time--(rc: Here Mr Way is saying this CRISIS does not have a finished time?),--..."

Yeah, more or less. My interpretation of his line of reasoning is that there's an event window for Y2k errors in a given system, beginning with the first lookahead errors, and ending with the last lookback/back-and-forward errors. There's a finish time for each system, but the finish times for all systems are not synchronized around any specific date.

"...nor will the efforts at prevention:(RC: Here Mr. Way is saying the Efforts at preventing the above CRISIS will not end!)--..."

Of course they will end, just not on a specific date.

"... they must continue for elements whose domain of applicability is entered as time goes on, as 'todays date'--(RC: Here he is saying that with new compliancy that a clerk entering a two digit field could screw the whole deal)---..."

Yikes! The whole time domain thing he's talking about here is related to earlier paragraphs where he talks about the nature of look-forward/back/both logic and "what it takes to create a Y2K problem." I can't imagine how you got from there to the deal-screwing-clerk... but rest assured the data that your clerk is entering will be edited before it enters the system. If it was that easy to screw the whole deal, the whole deal would already have ten kids, and would be pregnant again.

"... moves forward. Like a quantum mechanical particle. Y2K exists as a probability wave that peaks sometime around 1/1/00 falls off on both sides and only collapses to a point when an individual technology element is pinned down and "measured". There is no "end-game"."--(RC: here he is talking about the atomic aspect of interelatedness and how The Hoffs and Anita's of remediation have their prospective noses out their.....not considering that its not an independent situation but a holistic one!!"

Here he is just finishing off his thought about the nature of Y2K errors (each system has its own individual start and end event windows for errors - no "end game" to tie back to Yourdon's essay, which is, after all, what he's responding to).

"Any other questions?? Why don't you and Hoff and Anita read the whole essay and then shoot your opinions off!!"

I'd like to think that it's fairly apparent from our responses that we HAVE read it - I have a printed copy of it sitting right here on my desk. The problem is, we did "read the whole essay", not just the bits and pieces that back up our opinions. Consider this - according to Mr. Martin, Mr. Way came to this very board, read the responses, and then felt the need to add a postscript. Perhaps because so many people were misinterpreting the original essay?

"You guys would refute God is he said you had a defective gene?"

Mr. Way will be gratified to know that his essay has been compared, even indirectly, with the word of God.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 04, 1999.

As to the "burn in hell" quote, it's strong but it doesn't mean (to me) what most people think. I believe he is making a moral judgment about those who have made the mistakes, those who people are depending on.

I was struck by the emotional surge at the end of the letter. After several pages of dry analysis he breaks into this incredible fire and brimstone-like speech. It left me a little uncomfortable about credibility.

Bottom line: It still spooked the hell out of me.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 04, 1999.

King O Spane, if you don't know how magnetic tape is manufactured, or read, then you have NO business popping those mud-rasslin' videos into the VCR. Leave that to the experts, please.

-- Spidey (in@jam.distraught), November 04, 1999.

> test only > test only > test only
>test only
>test only
>test only

-- alan (foo@bar.com), November 05, 1999.

> test > test > test

-- alan (foo@bar.com), November 05, 1999.