Ok people, How about time to get our shit together.

Allow me to give you some reasonable, more factual arguments and data to try and put all of this in perspective.

1) Engineers, be they software, civil, mining etc. are not stupid people - by default.

2) Of COURSE we knew the problems associated with two digit dates - have for a long time. Most specifically - whenever the hardware or software was created "HEADS UP" was given to powers that be, management etc. More often than not the systems were proposed to be replaced/phased out by the turn of the milennium. I conceed this was not always the case, often it was.

3) Where phase out or replacement of said systems (hardware/software, embedded or otherwise) DID NOT occur, the original "HEADS UP" applied. Do you believe that extremely critical operations were not in some sense (at least) protected from inaccurate operation due to date bounday functionality failure?

-> Critical systems have been assessed over the last couple of years. Data shows that few of these systems presented any kind of systemic failure hazards, often indeed the repair of these systems COULD in fact simply be moved into the "Wait to fail and see" scenario.

-> The reason corporations, Governments etc. set up Control centres, response groups and the like were because of this data - that (again) showed few critical nor systemic failures - THUS best to see what failure occurs. Such groups would act as RAPID RESPONSE *JUST IN CASE* the data was inaccurate and a critical problem occurred.

As might be expected, the engineers, managers, computer personnel were very professional about the way they did their job. They had to be - I sign off on my section being y2k compliant my ass is on the line.

Too much corporate and Government mistrust abounded. If an engineer cannot believe the data nor word of other engineers - well the world would have been fucked LONG AGO.

Read over that sentence again.

Politics -> politicians work on advisors. Advisors aren't going over-optimistic on a problem like this -> refer back to "ass on line" comment. No poli in their right mind was going to proclaim a clean bill of health and then have their assess sued for the NEXT milennium! Fact is -> engineers, computer professionals -> we checked the systems -> we made our recommendations and shared data.

Now - to the computer scientist pessimists. This was a cosy side of the fence - see poli argument above. The likes of Yourdon should be applauded for giving the general public a heads up. At no point did he demand that everyone enter bomb shelters. He leant (in my opinion) a little too heavily on the side of pessimism with respect to the claim that a fixed percentage of remediation programs would fail, simply because statistically a fixed percentage of software and hardware projects fail. This is a gross over-simplification. Remediation can be thought of as a form of maintenance cost and on-going project cost - as opposed to the statistical data relevant to the entire project life cycle. Even a cursory glance at the success rates of MAINTAINING software over time would give a better picture of what we are currently experiencing due to y2k.

Allow me to give you an overview - why the money spent was necessary - why we would do the same again - why (in future) i hope we can all find a bit more optimism.

1) Way back (often) when date functionality problems were introduced to systems (software and hardware) there was an appreciation by the developers of the problem. Recommendations were made, the software and hardware was conservatively designed with a mind that "One day this may fail". Even for the non-techies imagine this. That when you create something, you KNOW that this certain part of it is most likely to fail. Indeed you know around about when. What would you do? eg. make THAT the MOST CRITICAL part of the system? Think about it.

2) A couple years back more concerted efforts were made to track the problem since the D-day date was approaching. Initial analysis was made. Large manufacturers began releasing data about y2k compliance of their software and systems to aid remediation efforts.

3) Remediation of systems assessed as critical was undertaken. Regardless of whether we thought there were problems. Few problems (that weren't already known) were found. This data was released to public domain. Secondary non critical systems were then assessed.

4) Systems that underwent assessment and found to not be critical - NOR appeared to have date functionality problems were passed into the "Wait to fail" category.

5) Command centres and rapid response groups were made. The "just in case we missed something" scenario. (As opposed to the doomsayers who would have you believe that we were sitting on our asses). Systems were 'nursed' through changeover.

6) The major authorities and the public were informed of "just in case" procedures. This was necessary - again - in case we had fucked up.

NOW - the doomsayers are right in one important respect. ASSUMING y2k WAS going to be a BIG BIG problem (ie. original designers, see point 1 and what part THEY had to play, fucked up TOTALLY). I think we DID start remediation late. IF there were large scale systemic problems to fix, we would have been on a knife edge timewise.

HOWEVER - refer to my comment regards Engineers and how fucked we all are if they cannot trust one another's data. No engineer (very very very few) would morally nor ethically release bogus y2k data to another. THEY MAY allow the corp. spin doctors to describe it in THEIR spinny terms - but NO TECHNICALLY MISLEADING DATA would be released to another Engineer. That just goes as read. You have to understand that (to an Engineer) doint that would be like one medical doctor releasing (knowningly) innacurate data, or faked (made up) data to another medical doctor concering a patient.

The people that did nothing got through OOOOOk (so far!) - since (refer to point 1) many date crticial systems are no longer in production OR weren't overly critical. Regardless of this the remediation efforts WERE necessary, in order that we had a handle on the extent of the problem.

Common Question >> Why then was the public not informed or guaranteed?

Answer >> This was a global problem. The likes we had never encountered before. Each engineer, programmer, manager, bloody secretary who lists software they use - had a part to play. It seems we each played our parts well. None of us were willing to make assumptions or claim what THE REST OF THE WORLD had done. This, re-iterating, was no reason to be over pessimistic with regards to corps, govts and businesses drastically UNDER stating the problems they had found. If engineers had found drastic problems - they would have reported them. Hell a lot of these reports by engineers were wildly mis-quoted and toted as doomsday proof in the months leading up to D-day. This is where a major mis-reading occurred. THAT should have in fact been seen as proof that engineers would "blow the whistle" over even small problems. Engineers that seriously believed there WOULD be problems with certain systems MADE IT KNOWN.

Now - let's not fingerpoint - let's all just get on with it eh?

But let's always remember - have a little faith in professionals regardless of their field of expertise. Face facts - you do every time you walk into a high rise building.

-- Fletch (salman_fletch@yahoo.co.uk), January 07, 2000

Answers

Then why did I read so many articles, submissions to the Senate Committee, and public speeches advising preparation--which I did to the best of my ability?

I work for gov't and have most of my adult life--both federal and provincial--and I know that gov't does not tell the truth all the time, especially when controlling public behavior is to gov't's advantage.

I work with professionals, many of whom are fine, upstanding, ethical and moral people--some of which are worse than snake-oil salesmen because they wish to tower over you with "their education" or "their expertise" or their "management status" etc. and forget that people have minds and willpower all their own.

So you appear, to me, to be blowing off steam (judging from the bad language and grammer)--to what end? Do you wish to convince me that YOU are to be respected? Or that ALL professionals are to be revered?

I walk into high-rise structures because I must to perform whatever job has to be done there. I do not worry about chances. I trust my God to watch over me.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), January 07, 2000.

Fletch...well said.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), January 07, 2000.

Then why does Dale Way of the IEEE, the high priest of your technology totem, say it ain't over and to hang tight?

-- (@ .), January 07, 2000.

Sorry, Arrogance because, simply, I am an arrogant scumbag ;)

No tech totem. Really all I am saying is -> A process was adhered to, people did their jobs, you should trust in people more to do their jobs.

Whether engineers, doctors, nurses. A stop short of politicians ;)

The rest of it is just hype without fact. Separate fact and fiction.

-- Fletch (salman_fletch@yahoo.co.uk), January 07, 2000.

Fletch:

YOUR facts from general fiction?

You've got some good points there, but stop short of telling me to separate fact from fiction. I'm a big boy and I think for myself.

Are you trying to say that I, or all of us, have been "led astray" by following the advice of "whoever"...only to imply (as I read your post) that I, or we, should follow YOUR advice? That's sort've like "out of the frying pan, into the fire" don't you think?

Trust you? Trust WHAT? You don't even give me a name! Some courage there PA! Facts? Theories? Reputation? Professional Association?

Like I said--you've made some good points. Even worth consideration. But don't expect anyone to trust you or your opinions. If your ideas are that good, they'll sell themselves, you don't need to be a salesman.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), January 07, 2000.

"Really all I am saying is -> A process was adhered to, people did their jobs, you should trust in people more to do their jobs."

Thanks for the synopsis! I was afraid I was going to have to read the whole thing;)

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 08, 2000.

Fletch, well said! This seems perfectly reasonable in organizations where engineers have some standing. They DON'T lie to each other! (I do NOT grant this all professionals.)

I also agree that crisis centers "nursed" critical systems over the date change. It think you presented a nice coherent piece!

The problem lingers where there are no engineers, because businesses just USE the tools. This is why I think that much has been postponed. "Mission critical" is what I eat tomorrow. Hamasaki has been quiet. But what he saw was NOT fiction. I expect to hear from him again, and not for defending himself against a lynch mob. The engineers maintained the infrastructure, but the accountants have yet to be heard from.

-- W (me@home.now), January 08, 2000.

I wonder why Dale Way has shared his thoughts that Y2k is not over yet? Doesn't he represent a core group of engineers?

Has the "larger than average human woman" started her song yet?

Actually, Fletch, Dale Way's take was much better than yours.

neo

-- neo (LostintheMatrix@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

FLETCH..There are some "regulars" who have made their statements since the rollover, and I suppose this is mine. It'll be short and sweet.

While reading these forums (I hate fora) the last 18 mos., I gave the posts written from both sides of the fence equal weight. If expectations at rollover determined my position, I suppose it would have indicated that my butt was firmly planted on said fence. I'm sure those of you who were convinced there'd be no catastrophic events were truly frustrated by the fact that everyone wasn't converted after reading your posts.

I followed noone's direction in how or whether to prepare. As someone stated above, I read the posts here on TB2000, I checked articles and reports at various sites on the internet on a daily basis. I am not, will not apologize as some have done for setting up a pantry and storing some extra lamp oil. I simply did what I thought prudent knowing humans, whether they have letters behind their name or not, make miscalculations.

I would love to return to my gullible days of not questioning what people say to be so. I'm afraid after 48 years, I've discovered that the days of one's Word meaning something have passed somewhat. There are still some people that do tell the truth, but there are growing numbers who want to play word games. I'm also aware that if faced with the possibility of losing a job, most folks will be silent if problems exist in-house.

I'll take this time to thank those who have posted what they believed to be so, because it gave me a broader picture of possibilities. Thanks to all you techies out there who made it possible for the elec. to stay on, and I'm waiting to see what happens with the oil supplies. In your opinions, is there any need to still be apprehensive about our oil suppliers?

Thanks for the chance to vent.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), January 08, 2000.

If engineers are feeling good about their own stuff, good. If they're feeling good about somebody else's stuff:

From Infoliant's Compliance Tracker:

Y2K: What Happens Now?

Now it's chaos control. Calls to the help desks are backed up as many Y2K problems become evident as programs and data files are accessed throughout the year. No matter what the truth is, everybody thinks their problem is a Y2K problem.

The changes you put into place to address the Y2K situation are now in full active mode. And we're finding out how good those "fixes" really were. Right now every manufacturer is in a frenzy, trying to solve the problems that didn't get addressed last year, trying to adjust the changes that haven't fully worked.

If you thought last fall was exploding with changes to compliance information, you haven't seen anything yet.

http://www.infoliant.com/

Perhaps this deserves a new thread.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 08, 2000.

My experience concerning software engineers:

They vary enormously in experience and ability, just as the practitioners of any profession would.

Two equally competent software engineers might disagree about how a task should be performed.

The ability of software engineers to perform their jobs is often undermined by unrealistic time and resource constraints imposed from above. Their admirable efforts to compensate are not always sufficient.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 08, 2000.

Fletch:

Very well stated.

-- Chris Josephson (chrisj62954@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

A Postmortem :-

As we reach December 2000, all is well.

-- Fletch (salman_fletch@yahoo.co.uk), November 18, 2000.