Re: No Y2k Bug

["chris 'fufas' grace" <chris@transdata.co.nz>]

David McLoughlin wrote:
> 
> Daniel Bowen wrote:
> 
> > The fact that virtually nothing has happened actually goes to show that most
> > of the governments and companies involved did take the time and spend the
> > money to fix it.
> 
> I am not saying that systems did not need checking and in some cases
> updating, especially older ones. What I am going on about is the media
> hype which claimed power, phones, the Internet, water supplies, ATMs,
> aircraft, hospitals and all kinds of other places, machines and
> infrastructure were going to fail at midnight, causing international
> chaos and Armageddon for good measure due to the launch of Russia's
> ICBMs.
> 

I understand that four missiles were actually
launched in error, but they
weren't ICBMs


> The news media needs to be brought to account for promoting this
> fantasy.

Let's not let the facts interfere with a good
theory.

> 
> My morning paper today is trying to slide out of the doomsday stories it
> was running only last week with a story trying to say "it still could
> happen..."

I know several organisations running mainframes
who *did* have a Y2k problem,
and may still do so. And, bearing in mind that
most businesses have not yet returned
to work, and that we've still got Feb 29 to look
forward to, don't count your
chickens. I have first hand knowledge of a number
of DLLs used in accounting
systems that do date arithmetic that don't know
about Feb 29 2000, and if I
know of some, there must be more.

In addition I have heard that one of the major's
PASCAL compiler isn't Y2K
compliant and they only found out last week... And
then there's always one of
the UK's major ISPs.....


> 
> David McLoughlin
> Auckland New Zealand