...with all of 2000 for testing...

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

Slam in those replacement systems and code patches, kids. We've got a world to keep running. Oh, did we say we were going to be READY by Dec'98 with all of 1999 for testing? No, no. That was a misunderstanding on YOUR part. We are CONFIDENT, nay, we are COMPLETELY SURE that all will work...just like the Deutchs Bank International Transaction System, er ... no wait...that's not a good example...ummmmmm. Well, let me ASSURE you that all is well. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

The Wizard is just an old man pulling levers and portraying power, but has no real power to make things work. We will have all of 2000 and many more years after that for testing. It is frightening to consider that one of the most powerful banks in the world is still slamming in code as late as Dec'99 and its not working. They expected it to work, but it didn't. And it took them 100,000 transactions and 10 hours to figure that out and disco the offender.

You have got to ask yourself 'Are they ahead of the curve, in the middle of the pack or on the trailing edge?' of this strange parade. My vote is that they are ahead of the curve. They may have been the test bed for this system. If that is the case then we are 'enscrewed' as some here suggest.

International commerce will indeed simply stop because the money itself stops. America had better wake up to the fact that $100 billion in Federal Gov Bonds and $350 Billion of trade deficit dollars annually are financed by 'forgieners'. 30% of our business (GDP) is selling to 'forgieners'. This is not going to be pretty at all.

And what of the rest of the world?

Friends, it is indeed 'hunker time' for many in this world. Alot of stuff is not gonna make it. Alot of screaming and shouting will not make it better after the fact either. GI managers will tell you in private conversation that there are major, major problems. Publicly those same managers put on a happy face. Lying has become 'du rigur'.

Finish up those preps and hunker down. Get in that last bag of potatoes, TP, gasoline, etc. The switch is about to be thrown.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), December 20, 1999


dit dot for president---

Succinct-to the point and lucid! Like it!!

-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), December 20, 1999.

One very important point in the post: Many intermediate "deadlines" have already been missed. That's a bad omen for the January 1, 2000 final deadline. I've done some project timing / scheduling work in the past -- it's rare for projects to miss intermediate deadlines and still make the final deadline ... and if they do make the final deadline, product quality is below average. That should apply to Y2K software projects too.

Remediation is immediately followed by testing -- no one said they'd only remediate in 1998 and only test in 1999. Some organizations did say they'd be done with Y2K remediation by the end of 1998 ("done" means testing was done in 1998 too). That would leave an additional year for any additional/more complex testing they could think of, remediating/testing non-mission-critical software and testing embedded systems. Then they missed their end of 1998 intermediate deadline. The rest of the post is just speculation, no data.

-- Richard Greene (Rgreene2@ford.com), December 20, 1999.

Sure Richard, but the point is that speculation is all we have to go on. There were detailed but pessimistic surveys round about June, but suddenly it's now all optimism with no details. I just don't find that credible.

For example, the UK Health Service had a 5 year remediation plan, but went from 3% complete in August to to 100% complete in November. Did they PLAN to complete everything in the last couple of months of 1999? Unlikely. So that means that they were slipping, but got back on track at the last minute.

How often have you seen a late project suddenly catch up at the last minute? Oh, it DOES happen, but not often.

That's where all the pessimism comes from. Y2K is being touted as being somehow different from previous technology problems. Wierd, because it's got the same people working on it, using the same methodologies. I think it was Ed Yourdon that pointed out that if Y2K comes in on time, then that implies that software engineers have been slacking off for the past 40 years.


-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.


Statistical pattern recognition and projection is used all the time to forcast future demand and to adjust supply accordingly. They use small samples to adjust supply. The fact is we have been having small samples of information which fit a picture. It is not a pretty picture.

DB is either ahead of everyone else, amongst the fold - the average grouping, OR they are behind everyone else. Being one of the largest banking orgs on the planet and the German equivalent of the Federal Reserve Bank system in the USA, what would your guess be about where they sit in the lineup???

Richard, this is what they call a clue. If you get it then you get a gold star on your report card. If you don't see the point, then there is no point in explaining it to you.

If you need facts to 'splain it to you then ... well I can't give you more than what you read with your own eyes. You seem to be a smart person. Why is it that the people you depend upon to support you in the style you have become accustomed use 'projections' (not facts) to do so, but you in your wisdom are only interested in facts...? I'm at a lose as what else to say here.

Hoping you get a gold star on this one.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), December 20, 1999.

Sorry to disturb you.

The "Deutsche Bank" is a publicaly held company (stocks are traded worldwide with its majority in Frankfurt, Germany).

The "Deutsche Bundesbank" is a completly different one - this is the German FED counterpart. No problems have been reported there - yet.

-- Rainbow (Rainbow@123easy.net), December 20, 1999.

right you are

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), December 20, 1999.

right you are

DB handles $100's of billions in accounts, though.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), December 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ