If only "mission critical" systems were remidiated, then all non-critical systems must be shut down. Or why the best outcome to y2k is a 7...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

If only the mision critical systems are fixed, then all non comliant systems MUST be shut down, as they will cause failures in whatever they opperate. In this case, as 90% of the computers are not compliant in most places, all of these systems must be shut down. This will cause all buisnesses that depend on the non critical systems to run out of whatever they depended on the first buisness for... Thus they will be forced into bankruptcy. And so on... And all of this without ANY MISSION CRITICAL FAILURES! Does anyone agree with me?

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), December 08, 1999


Pretty good logic. Why doesnt the rest of the world get it?.

If a secretarys computer isnt y2k compliant she/he cannot do functions that are date dependant like scheduling, look aheads, amortizing, etc.. I am sure there is alot more stuff they wont be able to do but alot of it is buried in the process, that is people dont think about it until it fails.

I am actually looking forward to see who is lying and who is telling the truth, not because I want TEOTWAWKI but because I see right now so many people lying about compliancy or even contingency plans and they act smug when they hear about other people spending time and money doing remediation and making preps.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), December 08, 1999.

Not really. Chances are, the non-critical stuff is going to be producing human readable reports, not driving production machinery. Then again, who knows? That's the root of the problem, isn't it. No one outside of each individual company knows.

Also, just cause it ain't fixed doesn't necessarily mean it's going to fail. Of course, just cause it's got a "100%" fixed sticker, doesn't mean it's going to work either.

It's all so vague. But I don't think there's any "must" in there, or any guarantees of failure.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 08, 1999.

One would like to THINK that if a business depends on a system of another business -- i.e., it is a CUSTOMER -- that this fact alone would cause that system to be declared as "mission critical". At least, that is what one would like to think.

Personally, I think that these companies have NO IDEA what the frigging impact of Y2K is going to be on hardly ANY of their systems, with "mission" versus "non-mission" critical merely being a label that can be applied to lessen the number of systems that have to be dealt with before the time runs out (which it almost has).

In short: As with all things Y2K, "nobody knows"....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 08, 1999.

I will provide an answer for you in 60 days.

-- Me (me@me.me), December 08, 1999.

It depends on whether the system is free standing or date dependant to maintain operability. But a shutdown of all non-compliant, non mission critical systems is too broad a brush stroke.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), December 08, 1999.

No.<p>I don't know where you have been for the last few years, but exceptfor a few extremest holdouts, most people have researched and seen thatthe majority of problems that would have caused chaos two years ago havebeen fixed and tested. Except for small and some medium interprises, allpossible areas have been checked out and the critical ones fixed, as wellas most of the non-critical areas. The only things that have not been fixedare all of those old websites that were put up years ago before much ofanything was done.<p>Even Ed Yordon, the creater of this website, doesnot think the situation will be as bad as he first believed.<p>As forthird world countries, they were never anywhere close to as advanced technicallyas industrialized countries so they didn't have as much to be fixed inthe first place.<p>As for chemical plants and other areas where safetyis a factor,  their critical areas were not left strictly to computerizationanyway, because even without the

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 08, 1999.

Oh mah GAWD! I'M BLIND now ;-)

-- farfy (farf@somewhere.com), December 08, 1999.


Please refer to the federal government's inability to agree on what is or is not mission critical and to remediate the systems left with the def'n as critical. C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 08, 1999.

threat of Y2K, computers are known for screwing up and breaking down. <p>So, no, I think the only people who will agree with you are those who WANT to believe like that, contrary toany evedence any one could give them.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 08, 1999.

The federal government agreeing or not agreeing in no way determines wheather the work has been done and the system is ok. What counts is the work that has been done and how well it was done. Yes there are and will be problems from the remediation itself, but since these areas are in the spotlight and efforts have been made to check for failures or problems caused by the remediation, they are getting an uncommon amount of extra scrutiney. Sinse there are errors and failures showing up now, we should be reassured, because that shows they are being tested and failures are being found and fixed now instead of them waiting to see if there are failures on rollover.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 08, 1999.

No, Cherri, the fact that NEW systems that have been ramrodded into place to replace the OLD systems, and are now blowing up in our faces, should TERRIFY us. They are merely scratching the surface of what will happen come January, when systems that had Y2K "fixes" ramrodded into them without adequate testing (like, you know, the famous "year of testing", LOL) start blowing up in our faces.

Nice colors, though. Andy Ray would be green with envy.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 08, 1999.

Sinse? Has someone on this thread been tokin?

-- a (a@a.a), December 08, 1999.

The statistics are disturbing.


Year 2000 Facts, Forecasts, and Areas of Concern

-- Facts, Forecasts, and (areas@of.concern), December 08, 1999.

KOS, Why one year of testing? Because some "expert" in Y2K remediation said so? Especially a small businesses that just needs a bios upgrade? That one year of testing standard was made up by those IT turned "Y2K remediation expert" so they could gouge businesses for an extra years income. There is no precident for it. If you are talking embedded chip-embeded system, then you definatly do not need a year~ I've replaced chips and systems, fired up the equipment, and checked that it ran and that was ALL thet needed to be done.

COBOL software on legacy systems may need to be tested for a period of time, but even they do not need a year. It's just a time frame someone pulled out of a hat.

If you needed a year of testing after a hardware or software change, no computer would EVER be in working condition.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 08, 1999.

Yep, that embedded systems problem is a cinch to fix! Cherri, the only "chips" that you are familiar with are potato chips!

-- Boy Scout (boyscout@beprepared.com), December 08, 1999.


Gawd, I wish I could sign you up for one year of SPELL-CHECKING!!!

So I guess all those Fortune 1000 companies that all through 97-mostly98 that kept piping about the "one year of testing" were HOODWINKED by scaremongering IT Y2K consultants??? And when THAT deadline was missed (like soooo many of them, LOL), instead of making a pronouncement that they NEVER NEEDED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, they just sheepishly revised it to 1999Q1, 1999Q2, etc., etc.????

Well, gee, MAYBE. But I kind of doubt it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 09, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ