Subject:	Re: SaskPower
Date:	1999/07/22
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:26:46, bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:   >  > And what companies have not?  Mine says that they have.  How about > yours?  (Well I don't know exactly what you mean about 'scrutiny > before the law.') >  >    --bks >   It has to do with little incidents like the FAA declaring that there was a miracle last summer, surprise they squealed, we're 99% done. After a year of going backwards, 99%, 95%, 90+%, they're claiming 100% completion this week.   Well, except that Jim Lord savaged their marketeer.  And their marketeer said, -mumble- well, we haven't actually implemented the fixed systems and we do know that there are local patches specific to the individual air traffic control sites.   I hope they understand that like a gallon of pure water and a drop of oil, adding just a small, insignificant drop of a patch to a gallon of pure remediated code, gives you a gallon of unsafe, undrinkable code.   No one is saying that somewhere in the huge mess that is the FAA, there're aren't one or two, or even several hundred, hardworking, qualified, smart, honest, nubile, clean, well dressed but not flamboyantly, programmers, QA'ers, technical writers.  There may even be a mid manager or two who is kind, courteous, straightshooting, and an anomaly.   What we do know is that overall, they've scammed us repeatedly and are doing it again.  If it weren't for the "John and Carolyn did so much for us" news, the FAA's compliance would be front page later this week.  And it would be a lie because they admit that the systems are not implemented and there are local patches to be applied.  And hopefully they understand the concepts of regression testing and recertification of life critical systems.   Finally, I don't think the FAA is actually a lynch-pin.  They are a metaphor for what's going on across the various industries.  Power, TELCO's, Finance, transportation, are all parts of the puzzle.   The thing that's going to get us is two forces.   The upper management, industry commentators, and the regulators are ignorant of software.  They *think* they understand it because they have Palm Pilots and such but they don't respect the speed, power, and difficulty of fixing the beast.  When it bites us, when the tame lapdog turns out to be a black adder, they will be very surprised.  They haven't prepared and only now are beginning to understand that time ran out a year ago.   The programmers don't realize the interconnectedness and system talks to system talks to system nature of things.  Failures will propagate in strange and wonderful ways. Old master, new master, annual master, restore from archive, send the data to a trading partner.    When a mega project fails, there are frequently subsystems that are not just in fine shape, but have expanded to subsume the functions of a failing data trading partner.  This doesn't keep the whole from collapsing.   Based on the signs, it's useful that the FAA is so open, it's obvious that most industries are in poor shape.  What is not known, unless you have priviledged information on a specific firm, is exactly who will fail, when it will happen, and how fast the burn out will be.   I know that some firms are generally in good shape but I also know what measures they've taken over the last few years.  In spite of these efforts, they are declaring a full court press during the rollover, no leave, programmers on site, increased inventories of diesel.   I don't think the pollies understand how serious this is or how seriously some "famous name" corporations are taking Y2K.  And yes, they have printed "brochures" but they've also had real enterprise systems people working on the code for years.   cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html 162 Days, 3,906 Hours. 

-- a (a@a.a), July 22, 1999

Answers

Cory,

RELAX!!! I just checked the number of FEDERAL DAYS on the Gov.'s Web Site...There is now only DOUBLE DIGITS of days left...99 as of today. Better visit the Dragon Ranch!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), July 22, 1999.

"I don't think the pollies understand how serious this is or how seriously some "famous name" corporations are taking Y2K. And yes, they have printed "brochures" but they've also had real enterprise systems people working on the code for years."

Very good Cory, I guess that kind of puts the theory to rest that these companies are grossly negligent and apathetic when it comes to Y2k. D**mer Disconnect.

I guess working on the code for years doesn't apply anymore because apparently they are just "scaming us" into beleiving they are actually making progress.

-- (Doomers@suck.com), July 22, 1999.

DS, if you have been ladeling water out of a swimming pool with a thimble for a week, have you been making progress?

-- (@ .), July 22, 1999.

Doomsuck, try reading it again. SOME companies took Y2K seriously, got started way early, spent the money, allocated the resources, etc., and may indeed be in good shape. MOST did not. Its the latter that are scamming.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 22, 1999.

I'm not making this stuff up:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0017Oh

FAA anounces all systems Y2K Compliant

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 22, 1999.

Doomers Suck, give it up already! You never have anything constructive to say, all you do is rant. You are as bad as that idiot Y2K Pro. Why are you even here, wasing your time? Give it up!!! You are not changing anyone's mind.

-- Pollys Suck (pollyssuck@fedup.com), July 22, 1999.

Doomers@suck,

They've tried twice to implement the Y2K compliant software at O'hare and it has caused numerous difficulties. The fix thus far has been to use the old software. Time is running out for this measure. What happens when the fall back is unavailable if the crap isn't fixed?

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy yours for the short time you've got left.

-- trafficjam (judgementday@ahead.soon), July 22, 1999.

Pollys suck,

Why are YOU here? What makes you think I have to explain why I'm here to anyone? I don't want to change anyone's mind. I offer a different perspective from a different opinion. So BFD? Get a grip already, and if you don't like Free Speech then lobby Washington about it, don't bother me.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 22, 1999.

doomers@suck.com = Y2KPro (see previous posts)

FAA has lost all credibility - not worth talking about anymore, except in the context that organizations are losing their credibility.

Cory said:

The upper management, industry commentators, and the regulators are ignorant of software. They *think* they understand it because they have Palm Pilots and such but they don't respect the speed, power, and difficulty of fixing the beast.

This is one of the key aspects that annoys me about Y2K, from the hightest worldwide officials down to my cousin's brother-in-law: Y2K gets no respect. Everyone dismisses it out of hand without having any evidence, and often without even having an opinion. It's just: "It just won't happen."

-- Jim (x@x.x), July 22, 1999.

Jim,

Yup, somehow all these non-programmers know more than old geeks do, regarding how mainframes work. Absolutely Twilight Zone. You tell them of the risks, and they won't even consider that you're speaking of a spectrum of probability. "I just don't think it's going to be that bad." I have no idea what they have in mind by "that bad".

But you can hardly blame them. Look how traumatic it was for most of us, when we each first got it. And we KNEW how these things work, we KNEW that machines don't care about commands spoken in a clear, firm voice, we KNEW that the program either runs or doesn't, no matter how much you want to wrap it up and go home. We had very little wiggle room to deny Y2k once we saw the pattern, and still some of us took weeks or months.

Short-term coping mechanisms are often fatal. Look at how wildebeeste migrate, letting a river funnel them to a point where they all cross, trampling hundreds to death. If they crossed where they first hit the river, they'd be spread out, predators would not be able to prey on the compressed flow of animals, there would be few deaths. But this same reaction (avoiding difficult terrain) consistently puts them in good grazing land, avoids broken bones from rocks perhaps. Their coping mechanisms work just fine, right up to their last migration.

DGIs are just trying to cope, to avoid discomfort. Hope they get lucky.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), July 22, 1999.