Re: No Y2k Bug

[Richard <richard_snook@primus.com.au>]

Justa Lurker wrote:
> 
> It was Sat, 01 Jan 2000 23:05:46 +1100, and Richard
> <richard_snook@primus.com.au> wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:
> | I see no reason to omit this work from my resume. That you choose to
> | believe it was all hype is your choice. Yes the media did beat it up...
> | but thenthey cant count can they...neither can you it seems.
> 
> Sure I can.  I can also send a properly formatted usenet post.
> In the year of Our Lord 2000.  A bit of a misnomer since Jesus
> was born in or before 4 BC.  If one is going to count based on
> a birth, one must start with the right year!  We have been
> miscounting years for years.  You are outnumbered, 2000 to 1.
>
How exactly...by concensus we count from year 1 AD, irrespective of any or actual events.
By whom am I outmumbered?
 

> Only a fool would not at least look at the problem.  Software
> problems hit and were solved (with real live data) already.
> Hardware problems were hard tested last night.
> 
Many Hardware tests were done way before THE rollover.

> | Its amazing how many problems are occurring that arent seemingly
> | anything to do with Y2K...thats because people dont understand
> | its real nature.  I dont blame everyhting on Y2K...where did I
> | write that.
> 
> By claiming that 1000's of niggly problems remain.  Niggly bugs
> are what software is all about.  Just undocumented features.  :)

Not necesarily. Some problems were hard coded into chips..not he software at all
> 
> | Easy to hide behide anonymity... to have a dig from behind a cover!!
> 
> It does not matter WHO I am as long as I speak with clarity.
> 
Any idiot can bullshit...try taking ownership
You speak with all the clarity of little knowledge.

> | Yes most Y2K probelms are software related....only on computers...
> | PLCs are completely different in nature....The whole gamut of
> | rollovers are not complete. Technology in its imperfected state
> | keeps IT people employed..we fix the poor designs!!
> 
> Some say that you design so that you will always have work.
Inbuilt obsolescence is not a new concept...but  many errors are due to ineptness not concerted effort.
> 
> | Computers precious?? They're nothing but tools.. machines
> 
> Tools that provide wages to feed, shelter, and provide toys for you.

So do cars and trains and supermarkets...what point if any are you actually trying to make?
> 
> | Yes much testing has been done...and a lot wasnt..especially small
> | to very small companies...and 90% of business in this country is
> | SMALL business.
> 
> Small businesses who are gullible enough to attend Y2K seminars, and
> replace instead of checking equipment.  Or small enough that IF the
> computers don't work they are still in business.

Why gullible..only if you paid!! many were state sponsored and free and quite valuable for information, especially to
the small and micro business man/woman
> 
> | Your attitude is not new to me...came accross it often..it your
> | priveledge to dissent...thats fine...but if you think its all over
> | red rover...well well agree to disagree.
> 
> I don't believe it is all over.  Just that the worst has passed and
> the sayers of doom deserve a rasberry from the normal folks.  The
> worst Y2K related damage/failures we suffered were from prep for Y2K,
> not from the actual "bug".

Certainly much truth here. However I was not a doomsdayer..I was quite positive that if judicious precautions and
testing were carried out along withimplementing sound business continuity planning ( requires Y2k or not) then there was
not much to concern oneself with,,,there is of course more to it ..but why bore everyone with it.
> 
> | I wasnt pessimistic about the whole thing..I was actually very
> | positive. There are many systems around where simulations only
> | (testing) were possible as they interacted with other online
> | live systems.
> 
> Software works with advance dates.  Very few programs would have
> reached 2000 without needing to calculate or store a Y2K date.
> Live data, on networks, real world testing.

Youmiss the point entirely...many systems are not islands..they interact over intranets, VPNs and such or hok into dial
up services which are live and could not accomodate  REAL testing
> 
> | Sounds like you think its all bullshit and black science...mate
> | I work in reality...
> 
> Then you also have trouble reading usenet as well as writing it.
> I work in reality.  For the past two years I have been watching
> the Y2K furvor grow.  I looked around my small business and did
> a few minor checks.  Mission critical software was checked with
> their providers.  I've watched people buy generators and stock
> up on food and water.  But I didn't believe the sayers of doom,
> so my humble abode is stocked as usual.  Reality and correct.

My house was not supplemented either. It sounds like you probably carried out an appropriate audit of your
company...many Industries cannot afford to take chances...so generators etc were a valid standby. If no one had done
anything..we would not be discussing this right now..we couldnt.
Istand not to be criticised for my writing style...what are you?.. a teacher with nothing better to do in the holidays!!
> 
> The BS of both kinds came from those who wished everything had
> died on the spot 23 hours ago.  Just to prove that there was a
> bug.  Actually a problem in Australia would have had an effect
> on the rest of the world.  Panic buying would have set in.
> 
I had no wish to see systems or services fail..only an idiot would. Im very glad we came through relatively unscathed.
Just as well Australia got it right and that people withopinions and viewpoints as yourself were not inthe driving
seats...its safe to pull your head out of the sand.

cheers >:~)) Richard