CONCERNS FOR THE COMPUTERS

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

The software and code that many claim to be safe and sound has been weakened from all the fixing and repairs, so the economy is also put into a weakened state as well, since the computers and everything that goes with it is the foundation. That should be cause for concern. The foundation is now being tested, I believe that it is starting to slowly crumble in places with the failing computer systems popping up randomly all over the world is on the increase in slow but sure disintergration. The test of time will tell how strong or weak the foundation really is that our lives are all sitting on is, so its still a red alert situation regardless of what anybody else says or shows confidence in the smooth rollover to start off with, now comes the ultimate test of all, the test of time. It will either stay together or it will slowly start to fall apart.

-- Brent Nichols (b-nichol@ihug.co.nz), January 03, 2000

Answers

"The sky is falling..."

-Chicken Little

-- Me (someone@some.com), January 03, 2000.


My big question is "how will all the big tech stocks fair in leiu of the shutdown of spending on Y2K remediation" ? Hmm, I was thinking that the techs were what was driving the NASDAQ. All that money flowing in is now..............NOT.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), January 03, 2000.

Interesting as well is the billions of extra $$$ pumped into the economy by the Fed.

The economy is going to change it's just a matter of how and which way... anyone care to speculate?

Mike

===================================================================

-- Mike Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 03, 2000.


The software and code that many claim to be safe and sound has been weakened from all the fixing and repairs...

Let me ask you a question:

A computer program has a known bug. I go in and fix the bug. Have I made the program better or worse ?.

Your 'analysis' is that things are made worse with the remediation and therefore the economy is directly threatened. Is this correct ?

HOWEVER, if we did not fix the code we would have had certain failure and a certain, perhaps measurable economic impact. Doesnt that seem about right to you.

You cant have it both ways. If we fix it we make it worse, if we dont fix it its going to fail.

Do you really want to see failure, seems like you do with this line:

....I believe that it is starting to slowly crumble in places with the failing computer systems popping up randomly all over the world is on the increase in slow but sure disintergration....

You arent looking for an answer you are counting on failure.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


hamster, the poster expressed concern that things were beginning to crumble a bit, in view of the fact that problems are now beginning to show up.

Expressing concern is not wishing for that result.

" I believe that it is starting to slowly crumble in places with the failing computer systems popping up randomly all over the world is on the increase in slow but sure disintergration."

This is a statement of belief, hamster, pure and simple. It is not a statement that the results are what Brent desires. It is another way of saying that things can still be bad.

Why are you so uncivil, hamster? Too much time in your cage? Get out and walk around, loosen up, take a deep breath, maybe even clean your cage out......sheesh.

-- (4@5.6), January 03, 2000.



A computer program has a known bug. I go in and fix the bug. Have I made the program better or worse ?.

That's the point! There was a problem. Was it fixed??
The fact that it needed fixing is the very risk. It was fallible, has been "remediated" (if it has), and now needs de-bugging and real world app. -Thus greater chance for error.
We are not past the latter, yet, i.e., the end to end real world test environment.

There are now many weak unknowns introduced into the code/ system.
Caution advised.

-- None canbe (sure@where.now), January 03, 2000.


" I believe that it is starting to slowly crumble in places with the failing computer systems popping up randomly all over the world is on the increase in slow but sure disintergration."

I think my problem with this -- and with similar statements that have cropped up elsewhere -- is that it seems to imply that problems grow but are never tackled or fixed beforehand, as they are discovered, or along the way. In otherwards, a must result in b rather than a *might* result in b, but could end up as c or d or... I realize Brent allows for other possibilities above in his initial post, but to me this indicates he's already committed to one particular belief -- frankly, I'll allow for the fact that it's quite likely programmers are in fact currently doing what they're supposed to be doing as a possibility here, where Brent seems to have given up on them entirely. Last I checked, a cloud of black defeat wasn't hanging over everyone's head in the world...

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 03, 2000.


Trade and market very carefully, the code in its weakened state and has the potential to turn into very volatile material, we hope that the programmers are able to put restraints and able to contain it for now but if the instability spreads or gets more unstable as time goes by then the programmers will not be able to keep restraining it for very long. Now the question is, just how much of the code in the world is in a violatile and unstable and unpredictable state, for programmers forget that the number of systems and lines of code outnumbers them. Y2k has provoked the code and failures will happen, that is inevitable so that shouldn't be no surprise and is happening already that is a well known fact, not just a belief. The code is more volatile now in 2000 than in 1999 otherwise there would be no increase of failures that is a logical conclusion to make, it would be wise to hang onto your preps and those who placed their trust in volatile code need to consider learning now to to adopt the scout's motto to always stay prepared for any kind of emergency.

The programmers don't have much choice but to play a waiting game now to see just how much of the system and foundations of the code this will affect and how deep it will go into the bowels of the system for we are all interconnected in everything, the code could be all interconnected too, through the modems.

-- Brent Nichols (b-nichol@ihug.co.nz), January 03, 2000.


How does fixing computer code weaken it? I don't understand. Having worked in a software company for the past five years, whenever we have bugs that need fixing, we fix it. This strengthens the program and does not "weaken" it. I'm afraid that statement was made of ignorance, no criticism intended.

-- Hope Ful (notareal@address.com), January 03, 2000.

"for programmers forget that the number of systems and lines of code outnumbers them"

Again, this smacks of a dangerous absolutism that crops up at other points in your statements. Specifically, you assume that all programmers everywhere are completely blind to this possibility. I cannot accept this or other ill-defined, generalist pronouncements at face value. I do not know the full scope of the problem, but I submit that you cannot and do not as well if this is the kind of reasoning you rely on. The likelihood of every programmer in every situation reacting in exactly the same way to this or to anything else at play here strikes me as a hard point to defend unless you've talked to everyone, viewed every exact situation. Ultimately, it denigrates their efforts (implying they will not succeed at all because of their own failure to understand...) while puffing up your position (...where you understand the 'truth'). Not exactly welcome.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 03, 2000.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ