| Subject: | Re: Lawmakers want to revive old computer program to ease DMV lines | |
| Date: | 1999/10/13 | |
| Author: | cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net> | |
|
|
|
-- a (a@a.a), October 13, 1999
Hamasaki: Hoffy the doomergreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Subject: Re: Lawmakers want to revive old computer program to ease DMV lines Date: 1999/10/13 Author: cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net> Posting History
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:08:24, Hoffmeister <hoff_meister@my-deja.com> wrote:
> cory hamasaki wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> I'm in total awe, Cory.
>
> You, and you alone, could read yet *another* instance where "parallel"
> systems were NOT run, and somehow decide that *supports* your idea that
> "parallel" systems ARE run.
>
> Speechless, Cory. I bow to your ability to "spin".
>
> Hoffmeister
>
Save your awe for their stupidity. I did not believe that anyone could be so dumb. You told me they did it, I didn't believe that anyone could be so stupid. You were right. We're in big trouble, Hoffy.
You win. I was in denial. I thought that everyone knew that:
1) You run the old system and the new in parallel as long as possible.
2) You always have a way to back out.
3) If the system is mission critical, you run a hot spare.
Of course you are right. They're not doing the *smart* thing. And now they're whining, SCREAMING in fear, cowering, making brave noises to keep the demons away, saying smart-ass things like, "I'll call my lawyer." Yeah-right! As if a lawyer is going to make the computer work. (Kosky, your lord and master, is a lawyer.)
This is spin? This is pathetic. How hard is a DMV system? You have, what, 20-30 data items, a renewal date, an age, a height and weight, glasses required, address, amount of underarm hair, motorcycle
endorsement, piercings, donor, etc.
Why isn't this fixed in, oh, 2 or 3 hours?
Welcome to the bright side, Hoffy-the-doomer. You have proven that when the systems fail, there will not be a backstop.
I guess my clients will one of the few to keep their lights on, water flowing, etc. Looks like they really got their moneys worth in their prepping.
I'd place you somewhere near milne. Perhaps BOZO999 will be by for an intervention before you go completely Infomagic.
cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html
-- a (a@a.a), October 13, 1999
So "a", could you copy/paste for us what Hoff and Don Scott had to say in their responses to this? Thanks.
-- CD (not@here.com), October 13, 1999.
Ahh well, I see Cory's "Minnie-Me" is at it again.Anyone interested can review the following threads:
Lawmakers want to revive old computer program
Cory's original point was BS, and he's been furiously shovelling to cover that fact.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.
Hoff, as usual, you're full of shit.
Subject: The Neo Doomers, was: CAS induces near-collission Date: 1999/10/13 Author: cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net> Posting History
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:31:08, Steve Dover <swd@strata-group.Xcom> wrote:
> D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
> >
> > From the latest Risk Digest:
>
> [snip - you can read it at news:comp.risks - # 20.62]
> >
> > Part of the problem was with a circuit that sends the plane's altitude to
> > the TCAS system and to the transponder. The circuit uses an 11-bit code
> > over a parallel connection; a single-bit error, which occurred in testing,
> > would correspond to a 2400 foot difference in altitude -- precisely the
> > error here. (The article also notes that on a previous flight, the crew of
> > this plane was advised that their transponder was giving the wrong
> > altitude.)
> >
> What happened to FOF? It didn't even get fixed when
> they knew they had a problem. Talk about stupid greedy management.
What happened is just human nature. I don't have a problem *right now*, so I'll ignore it. We'll wait and maybe it'll fix itself. Bill Gates will solve it. Those Aero-doomers, they're just alarmists. The aircraft safety industry is hyping it so they can make money.
Kosky and his evil minions are waiting for the mother ship to deliver the Y2K good news. It's right behind the Christmas Comet. All better soon. It's just those small businesses, the cleaners, the ka-bob in a box carry out. It's those foreign places. It's never us, never the massively complex old line IT shops such as the banks, insurance companies, the remaining industrial base, government, the places with 20, 30, 40 years of legacy systems.
Hoffy and the neo-doomers nailed it. We operate on the edge of failure all the time. 40,000 people die in auto accidents every year in the U.S. In Galveston, Texas, where the tens of thousands were killed by the 1900 hurricane, they once again have houses and hotels built outside the protection of the seawall.
Hoffy and the neo-doomers have convinced me. I've been in denial. I thought that it was common to run parallel for extended periods. Certainly the large IT shops, the ones that run the
bet-your-entire-business applications have their act together. Surely they were ready for normal problems such as new untested systems going in, fires, power failures, and such. These are known problems with well understood solutions.
The Neo-doomers such as Hoffy have called me clueless, a spin-ster. They claimed that these kinds of problems are not understood by IT management. These problems take down enterprises, not for oh, 2 or 3 hours but for days or weeks. Sometimes the problems persist for months.
The Neo-doomers have examples such as Samsonite, Nevada DMV, Bang and Olufson, Hershey, Oxford Insurance, EDS-NJ, Chicago Board, and others.
Hoffy, leader of the Neo-doomers, brought up the issue of overcommitted Disaster Recovery centers; these centers are supposed to be available when an IT shop loses its mainframe. Unfortunately, widespread natural disasters, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. can take down more IT shops than the Disaster Recovery centers can service.
Even though this is well understood, the managers who have multi-hundred million dollar budgets, have not been able to solve these problems. The Neo-doomers have given convincing evidence that the discontinuity called Y2K will be far worse than I thought.
Unlike an isolated upgrade at Bang and Olufsen or Hersey, Y2K will hit all shops at the same time. If they can't handle a simple upgrade with a back-out, there is no way to mitigate the effects of Y2K.
It's time to give up on humanity and civilization, forget about finding a way out. I've been too optimistic because I have clients who have spent the money, done the work to protect their IT infrastruction.
Time to crank up Donna Summers on the eight-track, grab that
hyper-exotic babe in the sequined haltertop, the leather hotpants, the platform disco shoes... toot-toot, beep-beep. ... waiting for some lover to come.
"Live for the moment" the motto of the IT industry.
J.D. might morph to BOZO999 but Hoffy has gone Neo-doomer on the Pollies.
1914 Hours, party on dudes.
cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html
-- a (a@a.a), October 13, 1999.
It is unusual to see Cory so busy weaseling, spinning, and redefining like mad. By now, Hoff and others are just using him as a punching bag. And how does he respond? With name-calling!Cory has up until now been the voice of Doomie reason, since he usually confines himself to individual cases, however exceptional they may be. But this time, he's been slapped down but good. I had really expected Cory to back off, and admit maybe he got this one wrong. Instead, if you check out csy2k you see him dodging and spinning, while Hoff and others patiently remind him of what he originally said. It would be comical if it weren't so disappointing.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 13, 1999.
Naw, Minnie-Cory (hey, do you eat "mini"-doughnuts too?)I was referring to his post that started his BS landfill:
Didn't miss that one, did ya M-C? Cory will be so disappointed. You know, the one where Cory claims systems are "never" cutover without "parallel" systems?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.
I have readily admitted that Hoff's function point arguments have some merit within his SAP-centric world. But I am stupefied by his patent ignorance of how big iron's truly business-CRITICAL systems are managed around the world. This really says a lot to me.You can mock Cory all you want. Who cares? I'm sure he doesn't.
For that matter, you can mock "a" all you want, but he knows a hell of a lot more about testing than you do, Hoff. He doesn't care whether you mock him, either.
Not much longer now. Fortunately, nearly all the non-tech regulars here are already prepped, so this nonsense is just a sideshow to the main event. If I were you, I'd load up on the beans and ammo, Hoff. You're gonna need both. Think of it as "parallel processing."
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 13, 1999.
So for the non-technical lurkers, let me get this straight. Hoff and Flint, in a move soon to be known as the Super Polly Get-a-Grip, claim that since much of the remediation is being done without the safety net of backup systems, fall back software or hot sites, that means things are going to go BETTER than expected?BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one guys. Now I've heard everything. Remind me to tell our sysadmins to dump all our backup tapes and delete all old versions of the code when I see them tomorrow.
ROTFLMAO
This is going to be more pathetic than I thought. No fucking wonder there's only 119 names on deJagers site.
-- a (a@a.a), October 13, 1999.
B-D and M-C, y'all obviously learned well from Cory.Anyone who wants can review the actual threads. I won't repeat them here. But they have absolutely nothing to do with "backup tapes" or "testing", as much as Cory, B-D or M-C may want to shift it that way.
Beans and ammo? Get enough gas and hot-air on the 'net, B-D. Thanks anyway.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.
C'mon, Hoffy, you are a closet tinfoil, admit it! Just last week, you were dooming with the best of them, espousing about the plot you told us was hatched by the Bank of England, uh, I mean, Coca Cola back in the mid-80s to use New Coke as a well timed "disaster" so as to actually reap the profits of the newly appreciated "Classic Coke", thereby causing Pepsi to de-value, uh, I mean lose popularity. And, sez you, your dad actually SAW THE TRUCKS that said "U.N.", uh, wait, I mean "Classic Coke" when SUPPOSEDLY the cabal, uh, I mean Coca Cola, was terminating the barbaric relic, uh, I mean that old soft drink.
Hoffy, wear your tinfoil proudly. And don't take no stuff from the gubmint.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 13, 1999.
Yeah, I warned Hoff about hanging out with Mr. "Banks are fine but my money's coming out" Flint. I think he caught sight of those 3 tons of beans in Flints basement.LOL
-- a (a@a.a), October 13, 1999.
Somebody help me out here. I went to deja and followed the thread a while, but it's pretty slow and I got a little impatient.Is the issue Hamasaki's assertion that mainframes don't get turned off all at once, but gradually?
Is this it? Because if it is, Hoff & Flint are showing they don't know jack about mainframe replacement.
I've participated in several hardware replacements (DOD & private biz), and of the dozen or so that I participated or observed, NONE, I repeat NONE went cold turkey to the new hardware.
All of them switched program by program, circuit by circuit, batch by batch to the new system. Too many departments and users using the various programs to do anything that risky.
The shortest changeover was 6 months. The longest was 18 months. Most took a year.
Hoff, have you EVER done a mainframe replacement on a critical system???
Jolly
-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), October 14, 1999.
No, Prez, the issue is Cory made quite a point of stating that systems are "never" replaced without running the old system in "parallel", in production, for months.Not parallel testing. Not backups. But in production.
The link above is to his original post that started this. Here it is again:
And yes, I've done quite a few replacements of mainframe systems. You stretch a bit with the "program-by-program" stuff; usually, it's application by application. Although I was involved in a "big-bang" implementation, where the entire system was replaced in mass.
And none involved running the legacy system in parallel in production.
I stated in the threads I don't doubt this is done in some instances; and it was a fairly common practice, back when "online" systems were basically feeding "transaction" files, that were processed in batch. But to state this is anywhere near a common practice in current replacements is just wrong, and out of touch with reality.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.
No, Prez, the issue is Cory made quite a point of stating that systems are "never" replaced without running the old system in "parallel", in production, for months.Not parallel testing. Not backups. But in production.
The link above is to his original post that started this. Here it is again:
And yes, I've done quite a few replacements of mainframe systems. You stretch a bit with the "program-by-program" stuff; usually, it's application by application. Although I was involved in a "big-bang" implementation, where the entire system was replaced in mass.
And none involved running the legacy system in parallel in production.
I stated in the threads I don't doubt this is done in some instances; and it was a fairly common practice, back when "online" systems were basically feeding "transaction" files, that were processed in batch. But to state this is anywhere near a common practice in current replacements is just wrong, and out of touch with reality.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.
This is the second time that I've been thru a conversion, just at this company (I've done a few more before). First was a Sperry to IBM mainframe (VS/9 to VSE OS change, MACROS and such, core machine language was the same), second is IBM to NT (a complete rewrite).I've NEVER seen a case where PRODUCTION was not run in parallel, for at least a few months. It's just not enough to run with test data. Full file runs are required to find all those pesky little bugs. You run the production on the old system, then run it on the new, and compare the results.
Standard operating procedure, at least everywhere that I've ever worked for 31+ years.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.
Ok Hoff,Obviously "Never say Never".
The last critical mainframe I worked with was 1991, so my knowledge may be a *little* out of date. That system was for a pharmaceutical company.
I quit the job before it was done, but after 6 months of PARALLEL processing, the older computer was still doing 30% of the work. And the 6 software engineers were still pulling 60+ hour weeks.
I think you guys doth protest too much.
Jolly - who thanks GOD that he doesn't dick with mainframes anymore.
-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), October 14, 1999.
Umm. Hoff.Your saying that Cory said that mainframes don't get cut over all at once but are run parellel? True? And your saying that Cory was wrong? True. The reason I ask is that that seems to also be what Cory is saying.
"Save your awe for their stupidity. I did not believe that anyone could be so dumb. You told me they did it, I didn't believe that anyone could be so stupid. You were right. We're in big trouble, Hoffy. You win. I was in denial. I thought that everyone knew that: 1) You run the old system and the new in parallel as long as possible. 2) You always have a way to back out. 3) If the system is mission critical, you run a hot spare. Of course you are right. They're not doing the *smart* thing."
So,Hoff, you appear to have conviced Cory that there are systems that are not run in parellel when they are changed. He says you were right. What's the problem? Is it that your point makes for rather pessemistic news? Or maybe the point got lost in the length of the thread. Or maybe it's just personnel now.
Watch six and keep your...
-- eyes_open (best@wishes.not), October 14, 1999.
Gee, I thought Super Polly Get A Grip was the new stuff they were gonna put out so the pollies could secure their teeth back after the winds blow mean (ie, the three day storm)in 80'ish days...Actually, Hoff your point is taken. But you are crowing over a semantics issue-whats the real point? Deal with that. So, the words are always never, sometimes, usually-whatever, get a grip on the problem he is pointing out. Thats what matters here, isnt it? or are you all too busy counting coup to count the systems as they shake?
Jeesh guys, grow up and look at whats actually happening here and what might come to pass. Its the indicators that matter. Not who can wave the biggest-well, forget it. Sometimes the bickering is fun-but dammit, I care a hell of a lot more about getting some kind of handle on what this all means then on proving who used what words to describe it.
Sorry Hoff but this is sure proof to me that you arent anywhere near as concerned with reality as you are in with your ego. And your spin aint saving lives or keeping kids fed, Corys passion and concern is far more important to that and the large number of people his site and WRP's and posts here impact-he's gone out on a limb at personal risk and great effort and is providing info, help and a way to deal with this mess that may make a big difference on coming thru this (or at least is non harmful if somehow little problems result)-and I am damn greatful for it. What does your spin and hustle do, Hoff? What do you care about-besides your image? What do you ever provide besides arguements so you can look like the big man, scoring a point against respected people like Ed Yourdon or Cory? Not that you'll give a damn, but the respect I had for you has really taken a nosedive over your apparent priorities as seen here.
Testosterone really sucks when it isnt channeled appropriately. At least PMS only lasts a few days. Sorry for the rant, must be my day...
-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), October 14, 1999.
SysmanAgain, Sysman, what you're describing is running production files thru the new system as part of testing. At least, that's what it appears. I agree, that is done, and is SOP.
That is not the same as running "parallel" production systems. The biggest difference is timing. I can take production system files and input, and run them through the new system, and in essence take as long as I need. If it takes three days to duplicate a days worth of transactions in production, it's usually OK. I can save the production output for comparison. In fact, it's usually desireable to be running at least a day or two behind production in the test system.
Running a "parallel" production system is completely different. Once the new system is cutover, the production transactions are entered, real-time. To be running the old-system in "parallel", you also have to be entering the transactions, real-time. This is a much different scenario than running a "parallel" test of the new system.
Jolly
Again, we seem to be talking of different setups. You appear to be talking about "phased" implementations; again, I agree these are done quite regularly. They can be "application" by "application", or when doing a distributed implementation, (ie, multiple plants, etc.) can be location by location.
But when an application or location is cutover to the new system, the same problems and considerations above apply.
eyes
Yes, the original point has been lost. Kind of think that's been Cory's goal from the start.
The original point had to do with errors and failures that have already occurred from the massive number of system implementations. We've been through all that.
Cory tried to say that those were irrelevant, because you always have these "parallel" systems running to mitigate the effects, something that will go away on rollover.
The point is not whether it's right, or good business, or the best solution. The point is it just hasn't been done, and saying that IF you do it the risks are mitigated is meaningless, if it hasn't been done.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.
LauraI see. So it's OK for Cory to spout BS, just not OK to call him on it. It's OK for him to then propagate more BS across multiple other threads, but I'm wrong to keep calling him on it.
It's OK for Ed Yourdon to write and publish statement made specifically to scare people and increase FUD, and then deny he made the statements. But it's wrong to point that out.
Actually, if Virginian is reading, I was wrong yesterday. There is one other thing that gets to me, and that's the underlying arrogance in these positions. Y'all can bitch and moan about the need for real information and facts from companies, and not "spin" or "PR Fluff". But it's OK when it comes the other way, because y'all "Get It", and know what's "best". Doesn't matter if the information and statements are BS, because you know what's best for the "sheeple". And anyone pointing out the BS is wrong for doing it.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.
Laura:This is an important issue, having nothing to do with pure semantics or testosterone levels. The question being addressed is, IF we are slamming in new implementations at a great rate, WHERE are the dominoes? New implementations open us up to a *scope* of computer problems that dwarfs y2k in range. Indeed, we've seen lots of reports of places that "went to a new y2k compliant system" and are having all kinds of problems.
Now, one possible reason for lack of dominoes is that not all that many new implementations are being done. But nobody claims this, because they ARE being done.
Well, in that case, Cory argues that there aren't any dominoes because organizations are running parallel production systems today, and if the new system isn't working right, they just use the older system they're running in parallel while they fix the problems with the new system. But this option will soon expire.
Hoff (and many others) reply that running true production parallel systems is rare (not nonexistent, but rare). Yes, they're tested in parallel, and yes new systems are sometimes phased in piece by piece over time. But as each piece is phased in, it's *that* piece that's used, rather than both the new and old systems for that function.
Finally, Cory admits that yes, parallel production systems (dual entry of input, dual reports, dual file systems, double the personnel and budget, etc.) really isn't being done, and it's a dumb idea and causing real headaches. And it is.
But if so, where are the dominoes? OK, we've now agreed that date bugs later are really being replaced by implementation problems now, and these are even more serious and difficult problems. And many of these implementation problems are clearly visible. Where are the dominoes?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 14, 1999.
"The point is not whether it's right, or good business, or the best solution. The point is it just hasn't been done, and saying that IF you do it the risks are mitigated is meaningless, if it hasn't been done."IT is a bigger world than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio- Hoffy. It is being done by big iron shops with any brains or commitment. We'll soon find out whether it matters that it isn't being done by, what? 5,000, 10,000 or more other big iron shops.
This mantra that Y2K, in any way that matters, is happening in 1999 is the polly polar reverse of the doomers who claimed all the stupid 1999 trigger dates. It's nonsense. With the small but important caveat that November forward will indeed see the introduction of many "replaced" or "remediated" systems.
We're almost there, Hoffy. I assume you're going to admit you're wrong when it turns out that Cory, Ed, a and myself are right? Right? Let's turn the tables a bit. When will you do that, Hoff? January? February? March? Never?
Or will you pretend that because something called the "world" didn't "end", that you were "right"?
Anything other than a BITR, Hoff, and you, by your own self-described expectations, will be WRONG. And you will be wrong.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 14, 1999.
Big Dog:You raise an issue I've been wondering about a lot lately. I've seen no real yardstick for measuring a "bump", leaving us all free to interpret each snafu that happens as either mild or serious, depending on our various predictions. There's an endless number of ways we can measure this bump -- unemployment rates, relative bankruptcy rates, relative shortages, rises in prices (cost of living), counts of how many people are without power/water for how long, relative mortality rates, number of riots, DJIA level, on and on.
But so far, nobody has put any numbers on most of these things. Just where is a practical cutoff rate for, say, unemployment? Less than 10% is a bump, > 10% is a crisis? One riot? 100 riots? 10,000 household hours without power in the US? 1,000,000 household hours? Gasoline at $1.50/gallon? $5/gallon?
Without any specific yardstick, we'll all interpret whatever happens in light of our preferences. Can you or Hoffmeister suggest practical measurements and define "bump" levels? It would be a big help, I think.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 14, 1999.
Interesting that you should say this, BD:"This mantra that Y2K, in any way that matters, is happening in 1999 is the polly polar reverse of the doomers who claimed all the stupid 1999 trigger dates. It's nonsense. With the small but important caveat that November forward will indeed see the introduction of many "replaced" or "remediated" systems."
These "stupid" 1999 trigger dates were predicted by some of the very persons to which you align yourself so closely below. You don't need ME to reiterate the predictions in "Captain, Oh Captain", or the other essays in which Mr. Yourdon stated that failures would be so obvious by now that the whole world would perk up and take notice. You don't need ME to reiterate the statements made that New York would resemble Beirut in the year 2000. Personally, I only allow a person so many incorrect predictions before I decide them unworthy of note. Actually, this time passed for me when Ed wrote "Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer." Of course you're not a programmer, per se, so you perhaps don't realize the direction that COBOL has taken:
This is what I've personally seen take place.
You went on to say:
"We're almost there, Hoffy. I assume you're going to admit you're wrong when it turns out that Cory, Ed, a and myself are right?"
Right about what? Will Mr. Yourdon be right about his predictions of New York, etc. looking like Beirut, or will he be right about his statement that he left the decision to leave these cities to the individual? Will folks be right that they first stated that those unprepared for Jan 1, 2000 will be toast, or will they be right if problems don't even show up until September, 2000?
-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 14, 1999.
Anita -- Get off it, it's tired, including the smear job of Yourdon in that tired article you link to. That's the main gist of this entire thread, isn't it? Smearing Cory and Ed?I never associated myself with the 1999 trigger date predictions, which, BTW, have been mainly OVER-exaggerated by pollies like yourself in the first place. Ed has already admitted he was wrong on that score. Let's keep smearing him, though, right?
It's interesting that the pollies (cf Hoff, Maria, Anita, Davis) NEVER adjust their opinions or learn anything from others, isn't it? By contrast, I have complimented Hoffy on his function point analysis, steadily noted where I disagree with other doomers, etc. Ed isn't a prophet, Anita, whether about programming or Y2K. I haven't agreed with some of his opinions about technology or programming over the past decade. But it is your loss that you fail to take him seriously about programming and it shows your unprofessionalism.
As for a BITR, I'll break my vow of silence with Flint momentarily: a bump-in-the-road is business as usual, with maybe a 0.2 percent hit on GDP. Actually, most economists have considered that to be the Y2K WORST case (ie, they would call that a "bad" impact, not a BITR). To put it another way, we are currently experiencing a Y2K BITR, as it were. If the impact gets no worse, that's a BITR, as Hoffy himself argues. It's really not very profound or difficult.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 14, 1999.
"Anita -- Get off it, it's tired, including the smear job of Yourdon in that tired article you link to. That's the main gist of this entire thread, isn't it? Smearing Cory and Ed?"Gee, BD. The way I saw this thread moving was an attempt to smear anything that Hoff said. Who has actually been involved with the remediation effort ...Hoff, Maria, myself, or Ed and Cory?
"I never associated myself with the 1999 trigger date predictions, which, BTW, have been mainly OVER-exaggerated by pollies like yourself in the first place. Ed has already admitted he was wrong on that score. Let's keep smearing him, though, right?"
Please point me to ONE place where I ever mentioned this before, BD. In addition, please point me to somewhere where Ed states that he was wrong. I've seen him state that he didn't mean what he said, even that he was "grumpy" when he wrote something, but I've not yet noticed where he said he was wrong. This should be easy pickins for ya because I don't read much of what Ed says.
"It's interesting that the pollies (cf Hoff, Maria, Anita, Davis) NEVER adjust their opinions or learn anything from others, isn't it? By contrast, I have complimented Hoffy on his function point analysis, steadily noted where I disagree with other doomers, etc. Ed isn't a prophet, Anita, whether about programming or Y2K. I haven't agreed with some of his opinions about technology or programming over the past decade. But it is your loss that you fail to take him seriously about programming and it shows your unprofessionalism."
Huh? Now *I*'m unprofessional because I fail to take him seriously? He's SORELY out of date, BD, as is Cory. BTW, I've modified my opinions on Y2k drastically since summer of 1998.
-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 14, 1999.
Big Dog:Actually, I'm trying to be very well behaved. Let's say I find your definition confusing. You are saying that what we're experiencing right now is a bump, even though very few can notice a thing, and I doubt most people could point to much of anything out of the ordinary. So by this definition, a "bump" is defined as no bump at all, and anything noticeable, however slight, is "bad". And I agree that this seems to be what Hoffmeister is claiming. I'm very dubious about this claim, since I expect considerably more impacts to happen. Hoffmeister is predicting no bump at all.
But saying that a bump=no bump, and any actual bump isn't a bump, is hard to swallow. I'd expect a bump to comprise real, public inconveniences of newsworthy proportions, but without domino effects and temporary.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 14, 1999.
B-DIT is a bigger world than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio- Hoffy. It is being done by big iron shops with any brains or commitment. We'll soon find out whether it matters that it isn't being done by, what? 5,000, 10,000 or more other big iron shops.
If you want, we can discuss the logistics of this, and why it hasn't been a feasible option. Declaring it so, doesn't make it so.
IT is what I've been doing for the past 5 years, B-D. Working on SAP does not mean I haven't been working with "big-iron" shops; replacing "big-iron" applications is exactly the point of SAP.
This mantra that Y2K, in any way that matters, is happening in 1999 is the polly polar reverse of the doomers who claimed all the stupid 1999 trigger dates. It's nonsense. With the small but important caveat that November forward will indeed see the introduction of many "replaced" or "remediated" systems.
Again, and I know you understand this, the number of systems "replaced" in November and December will be minuscule when compared to what has passed.
By declaration, you say it's "nonsense". If that's the best you can do, so be it.
We're almost there, Hoffy. I assume you're going to admit you're wrong when it turns out that Cory, Ed, a and myself are right? Right? Let's turn the tables a bit. When will you do that, Hoff? January? February? March? Never?
Or will you pretend that because something called the "world" didn't "end", that you were "right"?
Anything other than a BITR, Hoff, and you, by your own self-described expectations, will be WRONG. And you will be wrong.
B-D, point me to where I said it would be a BITR. Hell, B-D, it already isn't a BITR. 5 people just got canned at the company I work thru, directly due to the software freeze in place.
What I have said I don't expect "systemic, cross-cascading failures". I expect systems to fail. I expect work-arounds to be used. Systems have been failing, and work-arounds have been used. I'm not an economist, but a recession in 2000 wouldn't surprise me either. Whether the cause is "Y2k" or not will probably be an open question. But I don't see storing food as a hedge against a recession. My opinion, of course.
Will it "get worse"? Maybe, for a time. But it won't "break the system", or come even close.
As for the "main gist of this entire thread" being to smear Ed and Cory, truly laughable. Scroll up to the top, B-D. The "main gist" of this thread was to be a "smear job" on me. I won't apologize for defending myself.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.
Hoff -- You have every right to defend yourself TOO! And I should have pointed that out, true. But the charges fly pretty fast and furious around here as you know on all sides.I wouldn't store food against a typical recession, either, but I would when it involves supply chain unpredictability. And "food" is only a small, perhaps one of the smaller problems. Think medicines. This is such a no-brainer I can't understand why it is too deep for you.
Flint -- You go ahead and define it, I don't care. A bump in the road is, by definition, scarcely discernible, otherwise it is more than a bump. I hit dozens of bumps on my way to town every day and don't give them a thought. I gave you a yardstick that has been in the public eye for quite some time (0.2 GDP decline). Give me a better one.
In general, and taking Hoff at his word about his worst-case expectations, a Y2K-triggered or boosted world recession is more than a BITR IMO, though I would be delighted if that is the worst that happens. So how about calling anything less than a declared recession (two quarters GDP decline) with some visible Y2K triggers a BITR? Visible doesn't mean highly dramatic, just some accumulated failures of the kind that Hoff himself (and, obviously, Cory) ALREADY expect.
I am perfectly willing to start a thread on this subject, if only for "entertainment" and so that people can declare winners-losers next year if they get off on this.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 14, 1999.
Gawd! Sometimes I wonder if all of us, pollies and doomers alike, are caught up in something out of a Star Trek episode, where we are in some kind of Ground Hog Dayesque space/time warp continuium thingy, helpless but to say and do the same things over and over and over again, with only the slightest sense of deja vu.
I think I have the solution! EVERYONE, no matter what your beliefs, repeat the following:
"Y2K - It's the Year 2000, Stupid!"
If all of us do this, together, and REALLY MEAN IT, then we shall all be set free....
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 14, 1999.
OK here's my 2 cents: Some companies may do parallel processing. I suspect that most don't; they simply cut over to the new system. I've seen tons of gov systems that do parallel processing but not one for profit company that does it. So some do and some don't. Big deal. What would be the point in doing parallel processing for remediated code? Y2K is not new software development where there are concerns about data processing. No functionality changes. You don't need to process twice when all you've changed is from a YY to a CCYY (and with windowing not even a CC). Parallel processing doesn't prove that remediated code works any better. You can't partition your mainframe or midrange to operate with two separate clocks. Can't be done. If remediated code goes back into production (a cold cut over), you'll know right away if things aren't processing correctly. Most companies take baselines to prove the output data hasn't changed with remediation.And BD, I have changed my mind since posting to this forum. I used to think it'd be a 4 or 5, now I believe it will be a 1 or 2. I continue to see lots of work getting done.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 14, 1999.
I must be the only non-techie to get this far. Some interesting points seemed to surface. As a physical scientist there is one thing that I really like about this debate -- the experiment will be completed.
-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), October 14, 1999.
Dave:You're right, it can't help but be completed. And I accept Big Dog's 0.2% GDP decline as the dividing line as well. Seems like a good number to me.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 14, 1999.
Personally, I think along these lines:I really really hope the pollies are right.
I really hope that the doomers are wrong.
Making this in to a "who is right" contest is like the watches on the Titanic arguing about whether the iceburg would be able to breach the hull.
I don't think the lights will go out.
I'm ready for the lights to go out.
I have never seen such a group of rational people get in to pissing match in a public venue.
I count myself in the "doomer" camp. If Y2K is a bump in the road I'll come back to this forum and start a thread where any polly who wants to can post how silly I was to prepare. I'll print it out and hang it on the wall of my office. But personally, I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed. Me, or my detractors. After all, how old are we?
What ever happens, the very best of luck to you all.
And keep your...
-- eyes_open (best@wishes.not), October 14, 1999.
Hoff: No, I dont agree with your take on what I said, or feel about this. I do want to see errors pointed out, the debate and the info and viewpoints are important. What I got peeved at was that it appeared to be a *pissing match* rather than an assessment-sure looked to me that you focused on the arguement because of the animosities that apparent between the people here, and not the issues. Thats why Im frustrated as hell, cause I do care to see what you and the others have to say, wether Corys assertion is indicative of problems or the issue is really not as significant as he thinks. If I hadnt been looking for both sides of the issue, and real solid info on it, I wouldnt have gotten so frustrated when the thread deteriorated. I appreciate the explanation that was posted after your response. I guess it comes down to your feeling that what Yourdon and Cory does os FUD. I dont see it that way, I see people concerned and just as much at a loss about outcomes as I am. Maybe its the psychology-the more info and potentials I get, the better I feel-more able to make decisions and actions that reassure me and empower me. The be happy dont worry approach on the other hand, makes me nervous. So what Cory and Yourdon do is not FUD but very important to me. You may see this as fear mongering, to me its just the opposite.
-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), October 14, 1999.
Good point Laura.What is the point of this thread?
What is the point of this forum?
Ed and Cory (and a bunch of us doomers) vs. Hoff, Flint, Maria (and a few other pollys)??? Is that what this is really about? Who gets the best "score" in the debate?
I'm sorry Hoff, but you really are reaching. Parallel processing? The worst of Y2K has already hit us? Y2K is nothing compared to "normal" failures? A trillion dollar problem is just another work order?
And speaking of dicks in mouths Flint, it sure looks to me like Hoff's is in yours.
Mr. BIOS Flint, Mr. SAP Hoffmeister, and Ms. TELCOM Maria. I'm glad that things are so perfect in your world. Like you folks can see the big picture? Like you know more about how computers work than us doomers? Like you've got all the answers?
I'm sorry folks, but fuck this.
It's too late to argue about it.
If you believe the polly argument, just ignore the problem, and it will go away. Things are working just fine now, even if it isn't Y2K yet. No problem. We've got it under control.
If you believe the doomer argument, then you are prepared to live in a world that may be different from what you know now.
Tick... Fucking... Tock... <:00=
Sorry Diane and Chuck, and everyone else here, but this non-sense is really pissing me off...
God forgive me.
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.