The most important and earth shaking componant of this article deals with the term "Y2k compliant."

This is truly devastating once you grasp the implications of this. Basicly he is saying that it is not possible for a package/system/industry to be compliant. There is no such thing. It is a term coined by marketers to sell product and has no bearing on reality. We have spent billion to make systems "compliant" when in reality we should have made them functional and compatible.

If they can not be made functional and compatible than we need to come up with non-tech alternatives pronto.

In his words....

---------------------------------------------------------------- "ITAA, sat down with representatives from the Commerce Department responsible for the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). They hatched the concept and definition of "Y2K compliance." It sought to fulfill a legitimate need: defining a minimal standard for the treatment of dates in technology PRODUCTS that would protect both buyers and sellers from future problems and recriminations. An IT product sold to the government was required to be "compliant" to that definition. How that was to be accomplished was left to the vendor. This made some sense, although the coordination of potentially incompatibly compliant products was ignored. But the application of this term drifted away from that relatively simple purpose and metamorphosed into trying to cover a much different terrain. The term was misapplied, hijacked, so to speak. It began to be applied to INSTALLED OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS, not just new products fresh out of the box.

.. (snip)

In the minds of government people, especially those with a regulatory bent, compliance is a warm and comfortable notion; compliance by others to government regulations and edicts is every bureaucrats dream. Others picked up on that because "being compliant" also seemed to be a way to relieve one of responsibility. "Hey, its not my fault, my stuff was compliant." Being compliant took on a patina of "good," and the more general meaning of "safe." A thing that was "compliant" would not have, or cause, a problem or failure because of Y2K, became the sloppy-thinking and self-serving meaning of this concept. Your essay confirms this rather boldly: "100% Y2K compliance (which is, in its own way, equivalent to winning the chess game) ..." But this is false in a most misleading and damaging way.

...(snip)

A Real Time Clock chip may be "compliant" in that it increments and stores a century bit after its year register rolls over, but that does not mean the existing operating system or any application software that may directly access and use the RTC "knows" how to make use of that bit of information or expects that bit to be there and meaningful. A newly compliant operating system may handle the year roll-over and hand up a four-digit year representation to application software, but that does not mean the application software will "know" what to do with four digits; it may be confused or may ignore the century digits and go merrily along in a two-digit year mode anyway. Likewise, a compliant application software package may require four-digit years in data to realize its "compliance," but the customer data, of which there may be vast quantities, may only represent years in a two-digit format. Even more diabolical, a compliant application software package may support two-digit year with a sliding window approach, but the MEANING of customer data does not conform to the pivot year selected by the application software. Users, data entry clerks for instance, may render a compliant four-digit year system operationally non-compliant by only entering two digits, as they are used to doing, if operating procedures and training are not brought into the picture." -------------------------------------------------------------------

The IT community has foisted a lie and a hoax by perpetuating this illusion of compliancy. I, for one, am not amused.

The only way to be Y2k "compliant" is get out the kneepads and let Y2k have its way with you.

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

Answers

So... He's saying what? That there is no thing as compliance? ... ...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 03, 1999.

What he's saying is a bunch of techno-babble that relies on one seriously flawed premise:

That unless you are completely 100% compliant, which is impossible to achieve, the world will come tumbling down.

This is a ridiculous premise. While he may be technically correct that "data entry clerks for instance, may render a compliant four-digit year system operationally non-compliant by only entering two digits" - his conclusions make a logical leap for which there is no basis. Specifically, he opines (if you go check out the whole article) that 100% compliance is impossible, and without 100% compliance, the whole of technology falls apart - as if there are not now and never have been any bugs in computer systems. Horsepuckey!

And another thing, anytime a supposedly scholarly technical assessment includes references to burning in hell, alarm bells ought to go off in the minds of critical readers everywhere. The only thing to burn will be this guy's credibility.

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), November 03, 1999.

Dolma, if I had a dime for every time a POLLY has said that 100% Y2K compliance is impossible, I'd have... 6 or 7 bucks, at least.

This one of the few points I agree with Mr. Way on.

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

Your company is "Y2K compliant". My company is "Y2K compliant". Yet, when our computers attempt to send and receive information, they both crash. Why is that?

Duh......because our systems were remediated or upgraded to handle the year 2000 differently, is why. Therefore, you and I will NEVER be able to do electronic business, unless we "remediate" our computer systems (yet again) to be compatible with each other.

And what about our vendors? What technique did THEY use to remediate THEIR computers? Is it compatible with ours? If so, how many other customers does our vendor supply? And are all our vendor's OTHER customers computers remediated so they are compatible with their computers as well? If not, our vendor may go bankrupt do to the loss of their other business and leave us without a supplier.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

It's not rocket science. It's TEOTWAWKI.

Damn the Y2K bug, FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

>Duh......because our systems were remediated or

>upgraded to handle the year 2000 differently, is why.

>Therefore, you and I will NEVER be able to do electronic

>business, unless we "remediate" our computer systems

>(yet again) to be compatible with each other.

So, what you're saying is that up till now, every computer system has flawlessly interoperated with every other computer system? It sure looks as though you're trying to say that if my computer and yours don't interoperate, we're toast.

And yet.....and yet...somehow, someway, different computer systems have managed to get around design and structural differences far greater than Y2K for decades, allowing us to all do business with reasonable efficiency. Must be more smoke-and-mirrors, huh?

>It's not rocket science. It's TEOTWAWKI.

God, I hope so.

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), November 03, 1999.

Jeff,

In the U.S., the FUNDAMENTALS of computer logic in handeling dates, UP 'TILL REMEDIATION BEGAN, were 99.9% the SAME no matter which company a person, vendor, organization or client delt with, electronically speaking.

On Jan. 1, 2000, the RULES change, according to whichever remediation method or technique a particular organization chose.

How many different file formats are there in use in the business world? Ever try to get one file format to recognize another one that it wasn't designed to? Well, it won't. This SAME thing is going to happen with "date formats" that are incompatible. The data is not going to be read or is going to be read as something OTHER than what it is supposed to be, causing data corruption.

It's not rocket science, it's TEOTWAWKI

Damn the iceberg, I mean Y2K bug, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

Jeff--

Think a minute. Let's pretend you have sat upon the pinnacle of a the hierarchical triangle the dimensions of IEEE, as My Way has, were privy to all related data concerning the Y2K problem, the good and the bad, and at the end of the day, your unparalleled assessment is as poignant as his. Would you consider YOUR take on the overall, worldwide situation, worthy of review? I certainly would!

He has heard all the good and bad news. He no doubt held out hope, in the face of the numbers, that some way, some how, the impact would equal less than the potential. Yet, he chose to opine that it will not be so.

I applaud his gesture, no matter what his reasons, for coming forth and acknowledging the futility of expecting less than severe consequences, IMHO. Lives can still be spared, communities can still come to a ready state to care for the interned, the young, and yes even each other.

Big cities are no longer, if they really *ever* were, within the parameters of measurable containment. But families must be warned, given options, and able return to their roots. A difference can still be made, but only if more courageous folks, such as Mr. Way, Mr. Yourdan, Ms. Gordon, and the entire list of distinguished people bringing awareness of the scope and potential of Y2K to the masses, are given their due. Super kudos to you all!

So Jeff, what exactly would it take, what person or event could convince you?

Please don't say a KIA commericial, ok?

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 03, 1999.

Opps...sorry ED!!

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 03, 1999.

GoldReal

Truly amazing analysis. Much appreciated.

But could you explain again how those systems are working today reading all of these incompatible date formats?

I'm sure it's there, and I just missed it. Thanks again.

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

I think the essense of the Way's model is that you can take perfectly good arms, legs, organs, head, etc. and stitch them together and you still won't have a functional human (i.e., Frankenstein). In response to Hoff (who certainly knows a bazillion times more about computers than me), functional human beings evolved over time. I'm guessing the IT iorganism can be described similarly.

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