There have been several posts over the past few days about new mainframe fixes just released by IBM. This brings up the issue, which has also been identified, of whether banks running the IBM mainframes are compliant.

Just because IBM is late on releasing fixes, does that pretty much mean that the banks' code is still broken? Could the banks have patched the systems on their own? If the banks performed proper testing, would not weaknesses have shown up then? Should we now question the testing done by the banks? Are these newly released patches just marginally important?

I can't jump to any conclusions. Unfortunately, one of the conclusions that I can't jump to is that everything is fixed.

Comments?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999

Answers

Great points Puddintame, I would suspect that these same issues would also apply to the FAA.

Can a techie please explain?

Thanks,

Mike

====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 31, 1999.

NOTHING can be inferred from the "patches" presented. As far as I can discern, the APARS mentioned in Cory's thread only apply to OS/390 Release 4 and UNDER users, who ALSO have multi-system configurations. IBM recently released Release 8 of OS/390, and I, personally have no idea what companies are running releases below Release 5. These patches IN NO WAY affect all mainframes.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 31, 1999.

let me make this simple.

get your cash out of the bank.

I will be here next january, if the power and net stays up, to remind you all of your folly...

we are facing bank withdrawl limits, bank holidays, and banking infrastructure (international and national) collapse...

if i'm wrong - yippeeeee!

don't bank on it...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 31, 1999.

Anita. Is it your guess that very few banks and multinational companies are running the Release 4 and under?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

Couple points and questions for the gang.

The problem list comes from GregS who I spoke with tonight. He might stop in and add a message clarifying the issue if he has the time.

He's pretty busy, he's trying to get a CICS system to the point that they can start working on the source code. Yes, he knows that he has 122 days now.

Q. to Anita, By multisystem, do you mean multiprocessor in the 9X2 sense or do you mean Sysplex? Either way, these are very common in the Fortune 500.

Clarification: OS/390 release levels are 2.4, 2.5, etc. I think 2.4 is what Anita means by "Release 4". This is a subtle point as 2.4 is relatively current as far as mainframe operating systems go.

There are shops still running MVS 4.1 for example. I don't think that's what she means by "Release 4".

People, we're in trouble.

I received email today that SGI Irix which is advertised as Y2K compliant has a problem. The Chron scheduler won't work after Y2K. SGI should have a fix out.

Also got email that SUN is issuing a patches to make Solaris 7 Y2K compliant.

I don't know how much of a problem these items are but it's instructive that IBM, SGI, and SUN are issuing Y2K fix kits with 122 days to go.

1. get the hardware right. 2. get the OS right. 3. fix the applications. 4. test it 5. IV&V. now you can heave a sigh of relief. 6. contingencies, in case you missed something.

We're working on 2 and there's 122 days left. Take care, please. Watch out for each other. Plan to help the retired couple down the street.

More in the next WRP.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), August 31, 1999.

Puddintame:

I wouldn't venture a guess on that one.

zzzzzz:

Mainframes come in MANY flavors, as Cory has mentioned. The patches to which he refers only affect a PORTION of those mainframes. VSE systems, AS400 systems, MVS systems, and systems using Release 5 or higher of OS/390 are NOT affected at all. Even systems using Release 4 or lower of OS/390 are not affected if the systems aren't configured as multi-systems with file-sharing. The remaining systems may very well be affected and it's FOR THOSE systems that the patches are issued and must indeed be applied before end-of-year.

If any of the above is in error, I apologize. I used only the information available in the threads on this topic to determine systems affected. The complete APAR documentation was NOT shown.

I spent 7 years as a systems' programmer on large systems. These APARs are issued regularly as problems reveal themselves. It's up to the individual site to determine whether a condition exists. If the condition does NOT exist, one would be foolish to apply a patch that may introduce a new problem. If the condition DOES exist, one would be foolish to NOT apply the patch for a KNOWN problem in favor of worrying about what OTHER problems may/may not be introduced.

I'll E-mail IBM tomorrow and see if they have figures on exactly how many mainframes are out there, how many use OS/390, and how many may be affected by these patches. I'll report on any response they provide.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Cory:

Yes...multi-system configurations are common, however many companies and municipalities do NOT use them.

I'll be curious to see anything from ...is it GregS? CICS source code can be remediated whether a CICS region is set up or not. I don't understand why a system configuration effort would interfere with an application effort...unless those programs are complete to the point of waiting on a test environment.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Cory:

Sorry...forgot one thing. Your clarification was incorrect. 2.4 refers to VERSION 2, RELEASE 4. I was discussing RELEASE numbers only.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Cory -

I know less than nuttin' about big iron, but UN*X boxes are another matter. My first reaction when reading your note about SGI IRIX was:

"What the !@#$ do you mean, chron won't work past Rollover?"

What was SGI focussing on when they did Y2K testing, grep? I am amazed. How could a Y2K flaw in the system scheduler have shown up at this late date?

The answers, of course, are numerous and depressing. *sigh*

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), September 01, 1999.

Anita,

Let's call it 2.4 then. (you can call it "dot four" if you want but whatever it is, it's not 4.)

By the by, are you talking about multi's in the 9X2 sense or the Sysplex sense? I think GregS runs the former, not a 9X2 specificly but not a Sysplex either.

For that matter, non-multi's are probably getting very rare. The guys from S/390 Poughkeepsie demo'ed an inexpensive model built on dual 30 MIPS engines.

About CICS applications programming. Are you saying you expect GregS' applications people to set up a "sandbox" before he upgrades the system? There is a lot they can do before he does that but the rubber will not meet the road until the OS and CICS are up to level.

Until then, they may be kidding themselves.

As for Irix. I'm just cluelessly parroting what I got in Email. It's significant that so many OS vendors are still issuing fixes and patches with 120 days to go.

This should have been the situation a year ago.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), September 01, 1999.

Thanks for all the responses. I will stay tuned in. I can't say that I understand the details of the conversation, but I'll give you my layman's interpretation.

IBM still doesn't have the kinks worked out? Hey, this is IBM. Big Blue itself. In the y2k world, there is no higher power. I feel like I'm in the observation theater at Johns Hopkins or Mayo's watching a team of the world's preeminent surgeons saying, in the tenth hour of surgery, "Scalpel . . . uh, no wait a minute . . . clamp. . . Dr. Mendelson what do you think we might do next?" Meanwhile that last unit of typed blood is draining quickly. The entire time, the hospital administrator, a balding Yale Law graduate with a forthright manner is standing on the front steps assuring the press that the patient is fine, ...just fine.

What hope is there for surgeons of the world who are merely eminent, or merely highly skilled, or merely competent and hard working?

It is difficult to accomodate the uncertainty and confusion surrounding y2k. Gartner Group, at once a firebrand and government contractor, strikes an optimistic tone; yet even their pessimistic predictions of a spike in failures over the summer is not evident to me. We did have the MCI network outage and the Van Nuys spill. Van Nuys was y2k once removed. I don't know about MCI and I don't know about the E-bay failures.

So it seems to me that even some of the optimist's fears have been overblown, but I'm not able to conclude that things are under control for rollover. In a sense, I feel that we are already in the fog of war, but the front line of the battle is temporal instead of geographic and we are still behind the line. When we reach the front will the remediation team's work have softened the enemy enough that we can march in and fix-on-failure? Or is it going to be a scene out of Saving Private Ryan?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

Scary imagery, Pud...

Thanks Cory/Maria for your insights.

All of the above makes me glad I followed my gut and filled half my water tanks this weekend. Between unexpected hitches and widespread rollouts of under-remediated under-tested code during the remainder of the year, Van Nuys may be just one of many "accidents".

In a perverse way, I hope we have a rough 4th quarter. A bumpy autumn may reduce the risk of a disasterous spring.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

I did some research on IBM's site this morning to see if I could answer some questions without bothering to E-mail them. I didn't find any figures on how many mainframes exist in the world, but I DID find some other answers.

Cory:

Let's get the semantics out of the way first. OS/390 Version 1 had Releases 1, 2, and 3. OS/390 Version 2 contains Releases 4 and above. Despite whether your preference is to use Version[dot]Release or [dot] Release, IBM simply refers to them as Release X...no dot, no preceding version number. You'll notice this in the links that follow.

Regarding MY definition of multi-system configuration, I had none. I simply reviewed the information on the APAR provided in another thread. I did find the definition that IBM uses:

July 1, 1999 recommendation to customers to be on Release 5 by January 1, 2000. In this paper, the term "multisystem complex and Parallel Sysplex Configurations" was changed to "Multisystem Configurations.":

July 1, 1999 recommendation to customers

Puddintame:

You wanted some information on how many systems were involved in each industry sector. I DID find Parallel Sysplex Clusters in use as of 2Q 99: Graphed both by Geography and Industry

You'll notice that worldwide there are only 1320 Parallel Sysplex Clusters that engage in resource sharing and 548 that engage in File Sharing. This is a FAR cry from 50,000 or even 35,000 mainframes.

Regarding last-minute HIPER fixes, here's something that explains the different kinds of fixes and how often they are distributed (for ANY problems that may result in system failure.) Types of APARS: What exactly does HIPER mean, FIN, etc. Note also that APARS may be distributed weekly. The recommendation is that they be applied monthly, beginning in the test environment. I do believe that this document also describes when each Release was offered, as well as when the release will lose support. Totally new releases are offered twice/year...in March and September and their life is typically 3 years. Release 4 was offered in 1997. There's a fair amount of work involved in implementing a new release, but it's important to upgrade before support is removed. APARs (on the other hand) are handled fairly routinely. It's like changing the oil on your car. If you know what you're doing and have done it many times before, it's a cinch.

Types of APARS

Regarding releases of MVS, Cory, I DO believe that only MVS/ESA SP Version 5 Release 22 is Y2k ready with applied maintenance. Perhaps you were thinking of CICS when you referenced 4.1:

Questions and Answers

My bottomline on this one is that it's as simple as any other routinely implemented APAR, and will only affect a small subset of mainframe users.

Cory:

Regarding GregS and the CICS system, you stated that they couldn't do anything with the source code until Greg had established CICS. THIS statement is what confused me. They can completely remediate ALL the source, but YES, they won't be able to test it until Greg gets their system running. If there's a question in his mind regarding whether the APARs in question apply to his system, he should call his IBM representative to describe his configuration.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Puddintan[g]

hope your laymans terms get validated by one of the "great brains".

It was is excellent!!

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

After listening to Ms. Anita and Mr. Cory go at it.

Does anyone else get the impression we are in serious trouble?

The left and right hand thingy.

-- Dave Butts (dciinc@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

David:

You're funny. I don't see this as a serious problem at all. It's all a part of normal maintenance...like brushing your teeth. I really don't know much about Cory's experience in this area. I only know my own. I can't cook, and I DO know how to change the oil in my car, but I offer that task to others who enjoy doing it. For some odd reason, IBM manuals read like Stephen King novels to me. It's a total no-brainer to perform these updates. It's not at all CREATIVE, as one just follows the instructions provided.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Anita, great links.

Here are some Parallel Sysplex users:

"Parallel Sysplex success stories by industry: Banking/Finance/Securities (BFS) Mellon Bank Caixa de Catalunya Standard Bank Northern Trust Toronto Dominion Barnett Bank Banca Popolare di Verona ABN AMRO Bank ABSA Creditanstalt (now a part of iT Austria) Sallie Mae

Distribution Industry Solutions (DIST) Kirin Brewing Co. Nabisco Rite Aid

Government (GOV) CERTIAM GZAOP Texas Workforce Commission Ohio BWC Florida DCF

Healthcare (HLT) HIC Hewitt Associates

Insurance (INS) Allianz Versicherungs-AG Allstate Victoria CSS Dai-ichi Cross Industry ISM Alberta

Manufacturing (MFG) Aerostructures Kobe Steel Toyota UK Zeiss Boeing Honda Motor Company

Retail (PRO) Fred Mayer Mag Info Safeway Stop & Shop Office Depot

Services industry solutions: Telco/Media (TEL) ED TEL Kyushu Cellular NTT Nynex

Transportation (TRA) Alamo Boeing United Airlines

Utilities (UTL) Vertex"

Also cited at the IBM link, Nations Bank, Bank of Boston, Bank of South Africa, So. Cal Edison, JB Hunt, Deutsche Bank, Duke Energy, Hewlitt Packard.

I saw nothing on which version these companies are running. I know nothing of whether they are or are not compliant.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

Anita, I totally understand your point that this maintenance is easily done by those in the field. I THINK Dave's point is that even Big Blue is still working on fixes at this late date.

How many more fixes will Big Blue stumble upon bewteen now and rollover? How many will remain after rollover? We're all glad IBM is fixing things, but it's really really late in the game.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

Puddintame:

Glad the links weren't too technical. Regarding the releases these companies are on, I doubt that even IBM knows. They respond to the requests of their clients for upgrades, but who knows if the clients applied them? It was with that thought in mind that I decided that they wouldn't know how many were affected by these APARS....down to the exact number, I mean.

Regarding it late in the game to be offering fixes, you can bet your mom's life that more important fixes are being offered than those mentioned by Cory. Fixes are an ONGOING thing. They're applied EVERY month. Some fix problems that are happening TODAY and some fix problems that could happen TOMORROW. The fixes Cory mentioned will correct problems that would occur on December 31, 1999. Are THOSE more important than the fixes for the problems our system is experiencing TODAY? I know YOUR concentration is on Y2k fixes, but what about the fix to handle the problem a system encountered yesterday?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

I don't have time to argue out everything now, I will try to get on this evening and make a proper address to the group here. The problem is that it is *not* usual for everyone to be on the bleeding edge of whatever IBM wants us to do. We are busy people. When everything was brought current of the 9901 timeframe, it was thought "we are set with the OS and related systems products". Now we are struggling with move applications to the already existing 4.1 CICS regions from the 2.1.2, many issues here. The big problem is, do we try to apply every new PTF and ZAP that comes along? Do we receive the maintenance and apply on a Fix On Failure basis? We run a 24x7 shop, internationally, and only get one weekend a month to apply the maintenance to the production system and it better damn well not screw up production. Who has time to read all of the information of what conditions the error required for each and every stinking PTF in all the systems products on the system? We either apply reccommended maintenance or we don't.

GregS

-- GregS (gregsch703@excite.com), September 01, 1999.

Anita, I understand your points. These systems have flaws. They always have and they always will. The systems take talented people to fix the flaws. The talented people fix the flaws, the systems help organizations function and the information world will always work like that. We are in no danger of running low on flaws. The Maytag repairman would never have survived as a systems maintenance person.

I'm really not worried about any company on a micro level, which seems to be your vantage point. Take any given company, give it its share of y2k flaws, and I'm sure the rescue squad can save the day. Instead, I'm concerned about the simultaneous failure (or nearly so) and possible unresponsive infrastructure. But, I'm getting into things that have been hashed and rehashed.

Anyway, I understand your gist, that any date-related flaws found in 2000 are not likely to cause any more disruption than flaws found in 1999 or 1995 or 1986. I hope you're right.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

What I find interesting about these fixes appearing now, is that in the documentation from IBM Cory posted on 08/31 was an interesting similarity to a hypothetical problem with "permanent dates" and file management systems which was discussed on these forums within the last few months. Those records with "permanent dates" of 99365, 99366 and 999999 were mentioned as possibly facing deletion by automatic recordkeeping systems after rollover.

Now we have a service release bulletin which implies that, yes indeed, there are potential rollover or post-rollover problems of some sort with files and records using those flag dates. Is this some kind of interesting coincidence or did somebody from IBM read that thread and shout "OH SH*T!!"?

If it's just coincidence then we have a problem because somebody didn't have their thinking cap on when they considered Y2K ramifications to OS390. What else haven't they thought of and will it have negative impacts on some people's Y2K remediated systems if they send out further patches?

Hopefully this patch doesn't break someone's previously completed Y2K work. But no matter what the instigation for this patch, it's damn late in the preparations to be making changes to the operating system. I don't like the mental picture Cory painted a few months back of the geeks in the computer lab "slamming fixes" up until the moment the ball begins to drop.

But this gives that picture chillingly more detail than I'd like to see. Hopefully, at least those geeks won't be having to stop and clean the paper dust out of the punch card reader every fifteen minutes.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), September 01, 1999.

Greg, You said:

" The problem is that it is *not* usual for everyone to be on the bleeding edge of whatever IBM wants us to do."

Migrating from Release 4 to Release 5 would NOT be considered "bleeding edge" at this point. You then said:

"We are busy people. When everything was brought current of the 9901 timeframe, it was thought "we are set with the OS and related systems products". Now we are struggling with move applications to the already existing 4.1 CICS regions from the 2.1.2, many issues here."

I've never met a systems' programmer who wasn't busy. I always saw that as a positive to the position. Be honest here. Did you REALLY think that APARS installed 8 months ago would keep you current? You went on to say:

" The big problem is, do we try to apply every new PTF and ZAP that comes along? Do we receive the maintenance and apply on a Fix On Failure basis? We run a 24x7 shop, internationally, and only get one weekend a month to apply the maintenance to the production system and it better damn well not screw up production. Who has time to read all of the information of what conditions the error required for each and every stinking PTF in all the systems products on the system? We either apply reccommended maintenance or we don't."

Of COURSE you don't try to apply every new PTF that comes along. [I haven't seen a ZAP referenced in YEARS!] One weekend/month IS sufficient. Of course you don't want it screwing up production. That's why you TAKE the time to read the information on what conditions are involved. If they don't apply to your installation, you'd be foolish to implement them. Do you think IBM takes the time to review your configuration before releasing the APARs? They DON'T. It's up to YOU to decide what's necessary, and installing unnecessary fixes are definitely asking for trouble. In fact, some VENDORS send PTF's that are followed days, weeks later by warnings against applying the previous PTF's. You learn to put their tapes aside for a while before implementation.

Could you elucidate on why Cory stated that CICS applications work couldn't be started until you'd established the CICS 4.1 region? I've worked at several sites wherein remediation AND testing were performed using a CICS 2.1 region for testing before moving to a CICS 4.1 region with Year 2000 dates set for FINAL testing. The differences are minor from the applications end.

P.S. I don't think the point here is to ARGUE. From what I've gleaned of this forum, there are few posters experienced in systems' work. They're looking for honest information on what to expect. I've reviewed bit.listserv-ibm-main (where the IBM systems folks hang out), and no one is addressing this "problem." I've also addressed this issue to Arnold Trembley and his response was so identical to mine that he could have written it.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Anita, we have had entire threads revolve around why people who many think should get it, don't get it. Bad computer code does not care.

cory has brought out a real and very scary verification of what most on this forum have been saying: It is too late! Being in the position, with 4 months to go until 1/1/2000, of applying vendor patches is ridiculous. Remember: 1/1/2000 will come on time.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 01, 1999.

That's BS, Jack.

IBM is continuously providing PTF's for their systems, Y2k or not. Same with every other major software vendor.

This logic is truly amazing. Applying your standards, nothing would ever run, since there is a constant stream of PTF's and patches coming out.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Jack:

Are you reading what I'm reading? Anita seems to be saying that patches are applied EVERY MONTH, most of them for problems that have already struck! Yet we're doomed because patches continue to come down for a problem that hasn't even happened yet? Come on, man.

I think it's safe to say that computer bugs generically cannot be fixed. If one thing has been made clear on this thread, it's that nearly all patches for some problem introduce other problems for one reason or another, and some patches cause much more trouble than they solve. We will have bugs, and patches for the bugs, and patches for the patches, until hell freezes over. Some few of these patches are pro-active y2k patches, whereas most are after-the-fact patches. And life goes on pretty normally in IT shops anyway.

While I agree that y2k cannot be fixed, this doesn't rule out y2k being pretty insignificant, just like all these other problems the monthly patching fixes (or doesn't). Cory seems to be taking a tiny subset of normal business as usual and blowing it up beyond belief. Yes, y2k problems might make Cory's world a wild and woolly place for a while. But will you or I notice, or will we have to wait for Cory to come up for air and tell us how bad it really was, you just had to be there?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 01, 1999.

Anita, we have had entire threads revolve around why people who many think should get it, don't get it. Bad computer code does not care.

Jack: I'm ALWAYS amused by your posts. Keep it up. You're a funny guy.

cory has brought out a real and very scary verification of what most on this forum have been saying: It is too late! Being in the position, with 4 months to go until 1/1/2000, of applying vendor patches is ridiculous. Remember: 1/1/2000 will come on time.

Why is it too late, Jack? Vendor patches are distributed monthly or even MORE frequently. As I said previously, many of those patches involve problems that will happen much earlier than 12/31/1999. These problems will ALSO come "on time." Why is it, Jack, that Cory is the only person on the internet concerned with these APARS? Have you checked out bit.listserv-ibm-main? Do you REALLY think that if this were a serious problem only ONE person would be discussing it? Does it not strike you as odd that this person didn't address his concerns to others who were in a position to KNOW what was going on?

Just as an aside, Cory, what exactly IS your role in the Y2k arena? I've seen your signature files and all, but WHAT are you CURRENTLY working on...if I may be so bold as to ask?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Guys, guys, look the intent of my post was to say that it isn't easy to fix everything, even IBM can't do it. I'm not worried about the system going down. I'm worried about the applications that I have seen that haven't even been sent off to India to be fixed yet. I haven't seen where Cory said that we had to have apps. wait for me to bring up a compliant region, but what is happening is that we keep running into environment problems with the apps. going to a new region like a barcode scanner that automatically logs into a CICS region and something has changed and become unsupported in 4.1. As for the BS about only small, dumbshit, companies being the ones with the problems, don't forget that the people with the power of the purse decided years ago that the mainframe was dead and we were going client server. THE MONEY WAS STRIPPED FROM THE MAINFRAME! The people, the OS upgrades, the bigger CMOS machines, etc. I work for one of the biggest companies on the planet. Spoon fed, you don't know as much as you think you do. I have probably worked for most of the government departments that you can name, before I went private sector. All is not well in OZ.

-- GregS (gregsch703@excite.com), September 01, 1999.

Nobody said this was going to be easy. For that matter, nobody said everything had to be fixed.

People, why do you think IBM has a monthly tape of recommended maintenance? They've been doing this long before Y2k, and will be doing it long after.

The point is, this is SOP. I'd be much more worried if IBM wasn't issuing PTF's for Y2k. Issuing them means installations are out there testing. The same for all the hype Cory seems to put on the fact folks in bit.listserv.ibm-main are discussing Y2k issues. I'd be totally shocked if any group of IT people were not discussing Y2k.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Greg:

I'm about to log off for the night, but I wanted to address a FEW of your points before so doing.

Cory said this in a post above: "He's pretty busy, he's trying to get a CICS system to the point that they can start working on the source code. Yes, he knows that he has 122 days now."

I AM curious regarding why you chose to throw this diatribe our way: I hadn't seen ANYONE here mention ANY of these points:

"As for the BS about only small, dumbshit, companies being the ones with the problems, don't forget that the people with the power of the purse decided years ago that the mainframe was dead and we were going client server. THE MONEY WAS STRIPPED FROM THE MAINFRAME! The people, the OS upgrades, the bigger CMOS machines, etc. I work for one of the biggest companies on the planet. Spoon fed, you don't know as much as you think you do. I have probably worked for most of the government departments that you can name, before I went private sector. All is not well in OZ."

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 01, 1999.

Anita, for your information, I've been deeply involved in Y2k issues for over 2 years now. I'm sorry that I have not stuck to your discussion. I have pretty much given up on trying to talk to anyone about this and am only here at Cory's request. I have moved away from the District of Crime and am getting ready for what I think will be the very serious consequences of inaction caused by people who first said "no problem here" then said "well, maybe a problem, but not a big one." If you have not seen a ZAP sent by a vendor company in ages, then you have not worked in the field in ages. I received zaps from CA all the time while working for FDIC. Please, think what you want, the issues will be settled soon enough.

-- GregS (gregsch703@excite.com), September 02, 1999.

BTW, Cory said this in a post above: "He's pretty busy, he's trying to get a CICS system to the point that they can start working on the source code. Yes, he knows that he has 122 days now."

What he meant was that I am getting applications into the system because we don't want be remediating and testing the code in a 2.1.2 region and *then* find that we have CICS environment problems.

-- GregS (gregsch703@excite.com), September 02, 1999.

GregS, thanks for posting here. This thread is riddled by pollys for some reason, but read by many trying to understand. Thanks for your perseverance.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 02, 1999.

Here is my final comment on this, that was posted to csy2k, I don't have time to dick with idiots that think that AMASPZAP is obsolete because they haven't seen it in years. She should get a paying job in the government and say that to me again. For those of you that count..... Hey, twit, the point is that even IBM is finding new errors and they've been working on this stuff for years. What I am saying is that do-it-yourself shops that make and maintain their own applications don't have a prayer of getting their *apps* fixed ontime. We've done some testing and other shops have done extensive testing and I believe the systems will work reasonably well. I think that the site specific applications are doomed, especially with the blase attitude of the people who are using and sometimes maintaining them. We shall soon see, all arguments will be settled in a few months. Greg S

Anybody that wants to talk about this, do it through csy2k and make sure that cory comments on it. I dropped out a long time ago and am only interested in how fat cory tells his readers that I am. Do what you want, when you want, we are screwed. Spoon fed, I'll drop you a line on Dec. 25th when it is too late to fire me. Man, this was soooo different a couple of years ago, I thought I was going to be rich, and the problem was going to be fixed. Good luck, everyone.

BTW, I don't have the names of the people who thanked me on the screen right now, but you are welcome, and thank you for letting me know that I wasn't wasting my time. God bless all of the readers here,

-- GregS (gregsch703@excite.com), September 04, 1999.

You sure have an attitude, Greg.

A LONG, LONG time ago, programmers zapped their OWN application modules. I'm familiar with the procedure of which you're speaking, but it's not typically referenced as a ZAP these days.

If *I*'m the one to which you refer as spoon-fed, feel free to contact me WHENEVER.

For the folks in Northern California (Leska and someone?):

This isn't a question about being a pollie or something else. It had to do with Cory's statement regarding first 50,000 mainframes being affected, later 35,000 mainframes being affected, etc. The topic was of interest to me; I deciphered what I could of the APAR presented on another thread, and did some research on IBM's site. The results of that research SHOULD stand alone. I'll wait for Ray to tell me that IBM is the mouthpiece for someone before I believe contrary evidence.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

I'm sorry, Ashton. I've read many posts from you and Leska, but your names are hard for me to remember and they're not included when responding to a post.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

Anita (spoonera)
For some reason puzzling to us people have trouble remembering our names in print.

But after they've met both of us (we work as a team, together, all the time) people do not forget us. I'm more vocal than Leska in person, and the more adamant doomer; more hellfire and brimstone ;-)

Ashton is an English name; Leska, a Norwegian name.
ALLAHA is our biz acronym, for Ashton & Leska's Live At Home Assistance.

We were somewhat normal people until the Summer of 1998 when we GI'd Y2K in a flash. Now we have a flashing warning bulb illuminating heretofore obscured corners in all aspects of life. No longer is anything mundane. Vivified in pulsing technicolor with a shroud transparently draped. The boom will drop shortly ...

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

I have one more question on this thread, addressed to those of you currently doing maintenance on OS/390. Does CA (Computer Associates) have a large share of the market? I KNOW they do on VSE systems, but I was unaware that they were a significant player in MVS or OS/390 shops. I address this only because my experience indicates that they're ONE of the vendors for which one WANTS to hold off on applying maintenance; i.e., THEY'RE the folks most likely to upgrade several weeks later telling you that if you apply the previous APAR, your entire system will freeze up.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

Thanks for being so forgiving, Ashton. Could it be my Norwegian heritage that led me to remember Leska and forget YOUR name?

I understand completely what happened in summer of 1998. THAT was before I posted here and was engaging in conversations with my utility director. His confidence at that time led me to acquire quite a stash of items. For my area, things have moved on and problems have been resolved. I understand that others may NOT be in the same position. I even understand that others may NEVER be in the same position.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

Anita:

I wouldn't take personal offense at what Greg Schmeelk says. He's basically a nice guy, but like our own beloved Andy, Greg does enjoy a good drink. And experiences similar side effects.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 04, 1999.

Flint:

I don't worry about BEING personally offended. I worry more about personally offending! Just today, I was chastised for pointing someone to another thread on the same topic, and I sure didn't want to offend Ashton by forgetting her name.

I'll leave the discussion of Greg Schmeelk to others. My personal opinion is that Cory brought him up, he posted, Cory deserted the thread, and he felt a bit strange. He and I may have problems communicating, but I haven't seen anything in his posts that contradict the facts on IBM's website regarding how many sites will be affected by these APARS.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

bank compliance is an oxymoron...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999.

Flint,

I reshemble that remark :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999.

LOL, ROAR Anita, me MALE, think Tarzan, Ashton is a MALE name. No offense; should I post a pic of pecs and chest-thumping? Leska is my long-time wife (even female!). Contrary to Hardliner's depiction I'm not a wizened old besotted king either. MALE !! In the prime of life.
(Hint: KoS never has solicited a mud-wresting competition from me Ashton, MALE)

We're not particularly gender-conscious BUT this needs correction right away.

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

LOL. Sorry Ashton. I thought 'a' and pshannon were female, and Will Continue was male when I first began posting here. I've never heard either name...Ashton NOR Leska. They're both nice names, however. Please accept my apologies, sir.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

In reading through this thread, at best, once again the experts appear to disagree. Some shrug Y2K problems as just ones of many that monthly patches are supposed to fix, and the fact that patches (a.k.a. "PTF"s) are still being received for Y2K, and presumably will continue to be received for Y2K, is hardly a cause for concern. Others see this as being irrefutable proof that 1/1/2000 will come on schedule and these important systems will not be Y2K compliant, and could fail or become unreliable.

Nobody knows the odds on these scenarios. But we all know what the stakes are. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 04, 1999.

GGGrrroowwwLLL. Can you imagine, say, Big Dog tolerating this type of confusion? He would find the nearest fire hydrant and demonstrate in marked protest. We will work on some way to Rambo my posting image.

Now think of the importance of communication amongst humans, with two basic gender possibilities, usually easily spotted and identified.

Computers, however, have no humor or grace and communicate with strict robotic programming. Because Y2K has skewed their normal rhythms, they have been subject to confused people REprogramming (unless FOF) the computers in various haphazard ways, still requiring tweaking and patching and fixing and slamming and convoluting, encapsulating, windowing, faking, fooling, mooing. These computers will not communicate clearly post-Rollover. The cobbled symmetry has been hacked to patchwork collage shreds.

-- Sir Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

Issue date: 2 September 1999
Article source: Computer Weekly News
Bang & Olufsen sounds a discordant note with SAP
As the Danish hi-fi company breaks the unwritten rule about keeping the lid on, Cliff Saran takes a look at the public falling out

The public criticism of the SAP enterprise package from Danish hi-fi manufacturer, Bang & Olufsen, has opened up the debate over whether it is wise to allow business to rely on ERP.

To combat potential problems with its existing Y2K system, Bang & Olufsen embarked on the fraught SAP project in 1997. The DKK30m (#2.7m) move had three main goals: to protect the company against Y2K problems; to replace the existing IT system, and to enhance working procedures.

However, the project has encountered problems and is running late. Moreover, SAP has been blamed for damaging Bang & Olufsen's supply chain, resulting in a lower cash flow.

========

Here's the part of the article that I found most salient...

"What makes Bang & Olufsen's problems particularly important is that problems with SAP or other implementations of enterprise packages, are often never made public. "

Never made public. Of course not, for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, it would hurt their stock, if they are a public company. No company will come right out and tell the public tht it is dangerously behind. Not one of any significance has yet. But, we are to believe that the majority of these companies will finish on time.

Bang & Olufsen started more than three years ago. For those with short memories...the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies did not get cracking until after Jan 1, 1998.

THIS is the stuff that doomers are made of.....facts......reality.

http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/pagelink.asp?page=article&link=%2Fcwar chive%2Fnews%2F19990902%2Fcwcontainer%2Easp%3Fname%3DC12%2Ehtml

Paul Milne

-- subbing for Paul (sappy@it's.not.fixed), September 04, 1999.

Sir Ashton:

There actually WAS a time that I thought Bigdog to be female also. I think it had to do with his response on childbearing wherein he stated that he had 5 children. I wouldn't worry much about anyone else confusing your gender. It's simply of so little import to me that I guess I overlook the obvious signs. For instance, I've probably read 100 posts by Old Git and STILL have no idea whether there's a male or a female behind that handle.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

FWIW, trying to estimate the number of IBM mainframes that may require a newly announced PTF is not a trivial exercise. To say the least, Cory's estimate appears to have been based, at least in part, on the assumption that all OS/390-MVS HIPER PTFs must be applied to all mainframes running any flavor of OS/390 and/or MVS. There are numerous grounds for regarding such an assumption as invalid.

For a moment, consider the common practices pre-Y2K: at any given time, most, probably something near 90%, of IBM mainframes running OS/390-MVS are operating very well without having applied some OS/390-MVS HIPER PTFs. Not all HIPER PTFs for a give OS are actually needed by all users of that OS.

When we add Y2K to the mix, we can assume that OS/390-MVS shops will need some working subset of applicable Y2K code but not necessarily all of it. So unless there is no working subset of Y2K code in any flavor of OS/390-MVS, then there can be HIPER PTFs that do not need to be applied.

These considerations to not help us zero in on a good estimate, they simply indicate that such estimates can be more difficult than some may imagine.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 04, 1999.

I probably should add that different subsets (i.e. different releases and/or different levels of PTFs applied) may behave differently in different shops, some working in some configurations and not others, while others work where some do not. I trust that's all perfectly clear. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 04, 1999.

If the banks are not compliant when will that become visible?

-- fencing (doubts@worries.action?), September 05, 1999.

fencing,

It would depend on the kinds and extent of non compliancies. Here again, nobody knows in advance.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 05, 1999.

Anita,

To answer your question, Computer Associates are *BIG* players in OS/390. At our site they supply our programming environment (Telon), our Tape Management System (CA-1), the Job scheduling system (CA- Scheduler) and the source code manager, CA-Panvalet.

RonD

-- Ron Davis (rdavis@ozemail.com.au), September 05, 1999.