Peter de Jager: you da man!

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

This comes from the Washington Post. It was sent to me by a friend who decried the finger pointing and name calling and polarization over this issue. He said, "we should all just be thankful."

This from de Jager:

"What is ironic is that unlike the critics, only a few Y2K managers are willing at this early date to pronounce the Y2K operation a success even though it is way too soon to signal an all-clear. Over a holiday weekend, especially this holiday weekend, only a tiny percentage of computer applications are active. Most of these relate to the infrastructure, which received a tremendous amount of attention and was predicted to run smoothly. The real test arrives when the engines of commerce are restarted today, and all the applications in the world deal with the Year 2000 for the first time.

We need to wait a month or two before detailing our success or failure. We avoided chaos because programmers and managers around the world did their best to solve this potential problem before it became a reality. Of course some projections were inaccurate, falling on both the low and high sides of reality. Were the assessments of a foreign country's Y2K status accurate? I doubt it, because they were based upon the unknown accuracy of the most accurate data available.

Ironically, the greater our success, the more "evidence" critics will cite for declaring that Y2K was an illusion. But it's always easier to predict the future after it becomes history. Meanwhile, programmers around the world wish you a Happy New Year"

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000

Answers

If all countries of the world make it without event, Y2K was an illusion. I can't see any other conclusion. If Y2K was serious, the game must be just beginning.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), January 03, 2000.

De Jager was just on cnbc talking and he said that the REAL test will be at the end of this week and at the end of this month....

-- Linn (im@home.com), January 03, 2000.

Hi Dave, I have to admit that the same thought has crossed my mind. I was talking with a friend of mine from Colombia last night. His perspective is that place like Colombia and Nigeria run their infrastructure with far less automation and dependance on computer systems. In fact, infrastructure failures are fairly normal and commonplace and they have learned how to do frequent manual work- arounds.

I live in Colombia myself in 1986 and 87 and we never knew when we would have water and lights. You just stayed prepared with candles and extra driking water.

Many of these countries claimed that they would not have the same magnitude of problems because they were less computerized than us. Could this be the answer?

I agree with you that we are not out of the woods yet. Mr. CEO and others have been proven wrong, now lets see how Dale Way and Cory Hamaski's forcasts hold up in the real world.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


oops, sorry about all the spelling errors. It was "lived" in Colombia and "drinking" water.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.

Jose, Go back and read what deJager, Yourdon, and others actually wrote, as well as the tone and thrust. You can come to no other conclusion than that they felt unprepared parts of the world would see significant problems, and the industrialized world had a high chance of seeing problems, no matter how much they tried to prepare. The truth is, they were WRONG. WRONG! Not inaccurate; not overly pessimistic; not "on the low side of reality". WRONG! It's a hard truth for those who have propagated ignorance and hype for so long.

-- Jim Thompson (jimthompsonmd@attglobal.net), January 03, 2000.


Hi Jim, I have read most all of what they wrote. And you may be right, they may have been wrong. In all fairness, we need to wait at least a business week to be sure. Also, I was probably wrong.

Most of them (there are a couple of exceptions) never claimed that there would be an explosive collapse of the infrasture at midnight of new years eve. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of glitches, since New Years eve, but most have not been serious enough to get reported or threaten any aspect of our basic infrastructure.

Everyone was wrong. The 200 politicians in bunkers, the government who expected collapses in third world countries, etc. The point I think that de Jager is making is to wait and be cautious before we declare it is over and most of all, to be grateful for a positive result instead of looking for people to blame. I for one agree with him. And I am not getting rid of my preps just yet.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Jose -

When was this article or comment in the Post? It doesn't show up using their site search engine.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), January 03, 2000.


The article was in todays post and can easily be accessed via Yahoo news on y2k. I find it remarkable that Jose would now state that Peter is 'the man' when last week, many on this site would have gladly crucified him and his message.

Here was an individual who changed with the times and seems to have had his ear to the ground--somewhat, at least--in comparison to other gloomy types.

The worst has passed for the general populace. While I thank Peter and others who alerted the world to the problem to begin with...the praise should go to those doing the actual remediation work.

-- Bad Company (johhny@shootingstar.com), January 03, 2000.


Bad Company: I never critized or slammed Peter de Jager, although I know that many unkind comments were made about him by others on this forum. I have never claimed to be an expert and I simply have tried to weigh one "expert" against another to try to find something objective by which to prepare. I think it is obvious now, that of all the "experts," de Jager was most on the money. However, we have yet to see whether Dale Way and Cori Hamaski know what they are talking about.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.

Jose, Stephen Poole has been right on the money, as well. I don't know if he wants any credit---but he deserves it. Check out the Debunking site and the post labeled 'Cowboys 37, Anal Retentives 0'. I care little about Core or Hamasaki at this point.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), January 03, 2000.


Thanks BC. I had not read Stephen Poole. I'll check it out.

By-the-way, I didn't say "Core" I said Dale Way. Have you read his essay? I wouldn't call him a doomer, he is more middle of the road. He correctly said that the embedded systems would not be a serious problem and that the roll-over would not be a big deal. He is an electrical engineer and is the chairman of the IEEE.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ