Cory Hamasaki wrote:
Here're a few reports from the mainframe discussion list:
Note the timestamps. This is the current situation.
-------------------------------
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:49:05, ZForray@SATURN.VCU.EDU (Zoltan Forray) wrote:
> Well, I just checked the IBM Y2K stuff and while 2.X is considered READY*
> (meaning PTF's are required), I did dig further and found lots of hot,
> recent, HIPER YR2000 fixes. This is going to be a bumpy ride. We thought we
> were finished at ESO 9905. Some of these fixes are July issues (just got the
> tapes for 9906-9907 today !!).
>
> Where will it ever end ????
--------------------------------
> From: Dan McLaughlin
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 3:21 PM
>
> Along this line...my boss just said I need to do some homework on OS/390 2.8
> to be ready for production before 4th quarter ends as "2.5 is not Y2K
> ready"..
>
> My IBM'er who happened to be here working some maintenance with me looked
> as disbelieving as I did. Has anyone else heard this? I know that the MVS
> CP people look in and would welcome their comments as well...
>
> MTIA....
> Confused In Atlanta
--------------------------
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:18:29, tburrell@HARLAND.NET (C. Todd Burrell) wrote:
> My customers that I deal with have very little understanding of software
> and fixes. They see black and white. They feel that if a product is Y2K
> complaint, then it should be bulletproof. True technical folks know better
> than this, but it's also hard to tell a VP that he's an idiot no matter how
> true it may be... However, I have received more than a couple of YR2000
> fixes that were also HIPERs. This to me is a definite concern. A software
> product that is Y2K compliant may have some cosmetic fixes for Y2K (a date
> on a panel, etc...), but HIPERs should not occur...
I heard through the geekvine last month that this would be a problem.
Todd, Dan, and Zolt are talking about the monthly maintenance upgrades
to the IBM mainframe operating system. They have just received the
June-July fixes, 9906 and 9907, and are surprised to learn that these
upgrades include new Y2K fixes.
It can take a full month to install and test these upgrades and fixes.
Some companies stay current, they receive the fixes, install them, and
run with current level code.
Other companies will stay 6 to 9 months behind current. They do this
because it's a lot of work to keep up and sometimes, there are problems
with the maintenance upgrades.
Some companies are years behind in their maintenance. They'll install a
6 months or a couple years worth of maintenance at one time. It can
take 6 months or a year to do this.
There are 50,000 IBM style mainframes. These machines run the civilized
world.
Essentially, the mainframe world is a year from compliance. The time
can be made up but that is not a given. This by itself is no reason to
modify your plans, that is, if you have plans.
If you have been quietly exiting from go-go mutual funds, if you have
2-3 months of supplies and are gradually increasing them, if you have a
few hundred gallons of water, etc, don't take this as an invalidation
of your approach, as proof that you're dangerously underprepared.
The discussion between Zolt, Dan, the unnamed IBM'er, and the others
simply confirms that mainframe issues are *at least* as bad as I have
been telling you.
This is a serious, serious situation but this is a trip-wire, an alarm.
This is not cause to change your plans.
126 Days to go and a bunch of normally blase mainframers are breakin' a
major sweat. This suggests that *every* one of the 50,000 mainframe
shops is *not* Y2K compliant
There are still 126 days left. This can be fixed.
Those of you who are still not sure about the seriousness of Y2K, I urge
you to re-read Zolt, Todd, and Dan's words and ignore my commentary.
They are highly technical, mainframe operating systems experts and
have no Y2K agenda. Visualize Dan and his IBM consultant, he is
sharing a technical meeting between him, his boss, and his IBM rep.
I've given you the original source documents. These are from a technical
newsgroup/listserv. You have first hand accounts from inside mainframe
shops. Read Zolt and Dan's words, they're tired of this, fed up, and a
little frightened. I am too but it's important that people know what's
really going on.
cory hamasaki
-- a (a@a.a), August 28, 1999
Answers
Thanks "a", I'd like to get Hoffmeisters take on this problem. You'd imagine that IBM would have had these patches available a year ago.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that IBM would have JUST notified their customers that version 2.5 of their Operating System was not compliant.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.
Ray,
Why do you find that so hard to believe about IBM? Microsoft is still
issuing fixes and patches for systems and software that they said was
compliant a year ago. As to Hoffy, expect him to say it's just a lot
of "hype" and not really real.
-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.
uh-0h. eventually programmers are going to realize the ship is going
to sink. Reminds us of the mood last November when so many posters
were connecting the dots, before the pro obfuscators spun their
ridiculing cover-ups. All the scoffing cannot scuff over the facts
and technological reality.
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 28, 1999.
Ouch!
More foodstuffs required for the non-geek community.
(And be prepared to "Feed-A-Local-Geek" next year... for set recovery
on...)
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.
Gordon, you are so right!! They are issuing patches out of one side of their mouth and Happy Face scenarios out of the other side.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.
My take on what? The fact IBM is issuing PTF's?
Seriously, have y'all ever worked with IBM systems?
For anyone interested, the full thread can be found at:
ISPF y2k ready?
And these guys do a much better job at answering than I could. About
the PTF's and compliancy:
| From: |
Selles, Garry J |
| Topic: |
Re: ISPF y2k ready? |
| Message: |
10 of
16 |
| Sent: |
26
Aug 1999 11:13:48 -0700 |
| |
The fact that any product, be it from IBM or an OEM vendor, has 1 or
many
fixes that resolve some Y2K issue(s), does not negate the possibility
that
product is Y2K ready or 'Compliant'. To expect that there never be
another
Y2K issue come up for a product after it is declared ready or
compliant is
foolish. If your customer questions why a fix comes out, tell them
the
truth, that ongoing testing have resulting identifying some holes that
the
fix should correct. If the problem corrected affects your processing,
then
the fix needs to be applied. If it doesn't, then you don't have to
apply it
unless it is required as a pre-req for some other fix.
Garry...
-----Original Message-----
From: C. Todd Burrell [mailto:tburrell@HARLAND.NET]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 1:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF y2k ready?
I agree. How can I tell a customer that an IBM product is Y2K
compliant,
and then tell them that I have a couple of dozen YR2000 sourceid PTF's
that
need to be applied. Seems to me that if a product is Y2K compliant,
then
there should be no new fixes, or perhaps the product is NOT really Y2K
ready...
-----------------
And as for 2.5:
I have been running os/390 r2.5 in a y2k lpar for about a year. I have
had no
problems. I even let the date roll from 1999 to 2000 a few times. You
do have to
keep putting on ptfs. Application problems are the only failures seen.
I am sure
y2k problems still exist but Ibm ptfs are ahead of my finding them.
Some of the
ptfs are fixing very small problems. Some of the ptfs are fixing
problems in
products we dont use. I am happy with os390 r2.5. I am more concerned
with pc
and unix systems as (in my shop) they are all a little different. We
are not as
good at testing all the variables. Also applications keep changing and
must be
retested so the y2k testing never ends. Getting non ibm software (on
the
mainframe) y2k ready is more of a issue. No big failures to report
here either.
It is a lot of work. If you have not started yet you are in deep
do-do. Os390
r2.5 is not going to be your problem.
Dan McLaughlin wrote:
message by Dan McLaughlin
<Damclaugh@AOL.COM>
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 28, 1999.
Anyone care to translate the geek talk for us laymen?
-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), August 28, 1999.
Hoff, how about your personal thoughts, mind sharing them??
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.
Sandmann, I'll take a stab at it:
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 28, 1999.
Ray, my personal thoughts are you are getting a glimpse into the "real
world", where binary terms like "Compliant" have little or no meaning.
No software product I'm aware of has ever been released and
implemented without issues. Whether it's via IBM PTF's (Program
Temporary Fixes) or SAP OSS Notes, software companies are continuously
making fixes to reported problems. Y2k problems are no exception to
this.
Some fixes are for severe problems. Many are of the type that "if
it's the third Thursday of the month, and you hold your head at just
this angle, this might happen..."
The important thing is does it work.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 28, 1999.
Actually, I might have to side with Hoff on this one. HP-UX has new
y2k patches coming out regularly and most of them seem to address
trivial aspects of the OS environment. But I'm no IBMer and I wouldn't
know a HIPER from a segmentation fault...
-- a (a@a.a), August 28, 1999.
First off, not being a large systems programmer the following
question probably shows my ignorance for all to see, but here goes.
If IBM is currently sending out updates for os/390 software to
address yr. 2000 issues, what can the status be for any previously
remediated programs now logged as compliant? Am I out in left field
here?
-- Charles R. (chuck_roast@trans.net), August 28, 1999.
Some terminological comments: IBM uses the term PTF (program
temporary fix) for their mainframe software patches. The term
HIPER is used when the problem being fixed is one which may
have seriously adverse effects. PTFs usually come on a tape
that contains many PTFs, and there may be a new PTF tape
roughly once each month.
Applying a tape of PTFs usually fixes some things and breaks
some things, hopefully fixing more than it breaks. It is also
a bunch of work. So, many sites wait a while to see what
reports from other sites have to say about whether or not a
given PTF tape has a bunch a bad fixes. They may wait several
months before applying a tape, and when they do decide to
apply, they may apply several tapes, up to and including a
tape that fixes most of the buggy fixes in previous tapes, but
which itself adds few new bugs and/or minor bugs.
So, if the HIPER bugs are within a set of tapes that has not
yet been applied, they may be in good shape. Also, if the
HIPER bugs are in parts of the operating system that they do
not use, they may be in good shape. Otherwise, they may be in
bad shape.
Hopefully, that was not too brief or too geeky.
Jerry
-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 28, 1999.
Hoff,
You did not address the issue of Y2K HIPERs being issued at this late date. Wasn't that the main point of Cory's references?
-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.
Jerry B,
Thanks, that was a good summary of the problems. But I must say, it
sure does sound a lot like what Cory has been warning about for a
long time now.
-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.
Thank God I'm not a mainframe geek.
-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 28, 1999.
Thanks to all the geeks, polly and doomer alike, for interpreting for
us non-geeks. The issue addressed here doesn't really look too
con-foosing. All we have to do is:
1. Determine which entities are behind in applying HIPERs
2. Of those entities, determine what non-applied HIPERs are in parts
of the system that they do use
3. Determine what precisely will happen to those systems if the
HIPERs are not applied
4. Determine if all those HIPERs in 1-3 will be applied in
time
5. Determine if all those entities, (who are affected in 1-3 are
aware of potential problems that might fail at step 4 by not getting
them fixed in time), have completed workable contingency plans that
address these potential failures
Does anybody know the answers to 1- 5? If not, we are still
saying nobody knows what will happen, isn't this just one more
reason to believe that? As Flint would say, "Just because we don't
know doesn't automatically mean that all these systems will fail in
horrible ways." I would say, "It doesn't mean that some of them
won't, either."
Glad I'm prepared...
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 28, 1999.
hyper viper, poison to the System
-- h (h@h.h), August 28, 1999.
Terminology...
PTF = Program Temporary Fix??
At my site it stands for Patch The F*@#ER !!!
RonD
-- Ron Davis (rdavis@ozemail.com.au), August 28, 1999.
IBM's suggested reading for those planning the 1999 to 2000 rollover.
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/year2000/docs/rollover/rollover_english.pdf
Take your time and read the footnotes.
-- MoVe Immediate (MVI@yepimhere.com), August 28, 1999.
"Thanks "a", I'd like to get Hoffmeisters take on this problem."
Why, Ray? Scoffy hoffy is a SAP guy, not a systems programmer. He
doesn't have a clue generally so why should he now.
I would trust a, Cory, MVI, to name three, for their take.
If this is true, then we are in deep merde. I worked for Saudi
arabian airlines for example in Jeddah, for three years - a totally
IBM MVS/VM/TPF shop - no way did they ever keep up with the latest
APAR's and OS releases...
Cory is right - these OS's are spread all around the world - quite
simply many many shops just do not keep up with new developments -
i.e. if it ain't broke don't fix it...
Then think of all the stolen s/w in for example Russia and China - no
way will they have access to any new fixes...
What a stramash!!! What a total cock-up!!!
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked
up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences
beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the
whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the
world will be brought about."
Sufi Prophet Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan's prophecy (Complete Works,
1922 I, p. 158-9)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.
The End Game is gearing up! Andy's using his sig again. Yes.
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 28, 1999.
Andy, read my link above yours. It says it all. Its a dang PDF
document.
-- MoVe Immediate (MVI@yepimhere.com), August 28, 1999.
MVI,
I'd like to read it + the footnotes but I can't open a pdf doc here -
can you cut and paste any relevant items?
thanks,
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.
First, and most important, Hi MVI!!! Please take a few and tell us about how things are going with your project! Please, start a new thread!!! And, really important, tell us when you are going to get the hell out of Disneyland, I mean DC...
Now, I'm not an OS/390 (MVS) user. I run one of the "other" IBM OSes, VSE. They do have a third, VM. OS/390 is usually used on the really BIG mainframes, while VM and VSE are usually run in the mid-size and small shops. But VM, being a "hyper OS" sometimes also runs in OS/390 shops. I'm telling you this to make it clear that I do not follow the OS/390 PTF's.
So, what is new here? Take a look at Microsoft's Win/NT. SP-3 was supposed to "fix" all the Y2K issues. But, guess what, it didn't. So, they came out with SP-4 (Y2K wasn't the only item addressed) that was the last word in "compliant." Well, there were so many problems with SP-4 that Microsoft announced a "service pack for service pack 4," the first time that they ever did such a thing. Once again, the "bug" was still alive, and we now have SP-5 out. Is it "ready" yet?
I do appreciate Cory's take on most things, but I think he is making the old mountain out of a hill here. Y2K "issues" will be with us long after 2000-01-01. The real question is will most of the stuff work? I think it will.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going polly here. I just think that the OS itself is in pretty good shape. The OS is the first shot out of the bottle. The apps are what's left. Time will tell.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.
Hi MoVE Immediate!! I've been wondering about you....if you have
the time and inclination; please share with us your view of the
Navy June and August documents that have been hashed and rehased
over the past couple of weeks. I also recommend that you get
out of DeeCee as soon as possible.
-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), August 28, 1999.
Uh Jeanne, he's travelin' with LOTS of Scrambled Eggs and Fruit
Salad, and probably NOT in DC now. though he COULD be. Kinda
depends on the Scrambled Eggs.
C
-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 28, 1999.
Scrambled Eggs, Fruit Salad, and a well-stocked bugout bag...
-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 28, 1999.
ok guys........the game is up......with the IBM (PTFs) being used on a
ad hoc basis in my area ....power generation utilities in the
Australian power industry as luck ( bad luck ??) would have it I am
stuck over here in the ole USA as a consultant for a local power
comapany for y2k........and the news is all bad I'm afraid.......and
oh just informed my CEO ....gave him the Zolt and Dans words in
plainsspeak......ever seen a man blanch ?
-- Allan Sibrava (Madness51@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.
Y2k homesites available. Extremely remote +- 460 acres. Trees,abundant
game, surrounded by state and fed forest. Compliant cabin
construction available -- better hurry !! Contact me at my address
below for more details.
cliffh@paulbunyan.net
-- Cliff Hutson (cliffh@paulbunyan.net), September 02, 1999.
This thread Linked today by Gary North.
Newbies, this topic is also covered on other threads. Go to top of
this page, click on TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) hot link, which will land
you on New Questions page. If you get "Server Busy," just keep
hitting your browser Refresh/Reload button until the MIT server
delivers the page. Then, click the hot link New Answers at the top of
the page.
When you're on the Recent Answers page, do a Find for IBM. Happy
reading! Oh, and this Forum has all the latest & greatest about Y2K
and all possible related peripheral issues. Check out the archives!
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 02, 1999.
While it is certainly true that there will continue to be fixes
released, all is not necessarily lost. IBM itself on it's Y2K product
compliance sites marked almost all of it's software as Compliant(yes)
**.
The ** says "Yeah, it's compliant, but service is required"
They are leaving the door open to be able to cut a tape or warn you
of a hiper on Dec 31st at 23:59. There are liability issues here, Y2K
might enrich the legal community more than tobacco!
Any company that is not running a production image in an LPAR with
the clock set ahead by now is in serious trouble... the one I support
has been up and running for almost 4 weeks, current Julian date
2000.025, we are OS/390 1.3, no date related problems have occurred,
none at all, except with a few application bugs uncovered.
-- DJF (djf@foxinternet.net), September 02, 1999.
Guys...I work for a large multi-national, and our M.F. is crotchety of
the BEST of days...I knew that we were in trouble when the remediation
team all went in on tracts of land 'out there yonder' together. I
goota bad feeling that the next few months are going to define that
ancient Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times..."
-- Billy (coughliniii@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.
Answer: Adonai-Yeshua- Ruach HaKodesh
"MAINFRAME PROGRAMERS SANCTUARY ROGUE VALLEY OREGON"
Romans 11.11 "In that case, I say, isn't it that they have
stumbled with the result that they have fallen away?"
Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by means of their
stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in
order to provoke them to jealousy.
-- (tim@cdsnet.net), September 02, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ