Programmers know if all of these problems that are being reported are y2k or not (at least most of the time). Can anyone think of a way programmers can report so they don't get burned by their employers? My employer would fire me for discussing any of this outside the company.

-- billy d (billyd@aol.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

Use a false posting handle, like Y2K Pro, or something...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 06, 2000.

billy d; Sadly there is really NO way you can hide your identity on the network. You best bet is to stay with AOL as their incompetence makes it very easy for crackers (now called hackers) to hide their identity. Never the less if someone with real autority and power wants to track you down, they can. ALL MOST ALL ISP's log your time on and time off. Some log the line you came in on.

Check into anonymous remailers (over seas). Though your traffic will be monitored the monitoring authority (who shall remain nameless) will never report you BECAUSE they don't do that sort of work.

Just wait. That is the best thing to do. The truth will out itself or it will not. If it doesn't we are home free.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

FWIW, I am a programmer for a telemarketing firm (GASP!). Yes, we had some Y2K date problems that were encountered when converting text fields into dates on some old Foxpro 2.0 applications we had (God, are we behind the times). None of them were show stoppers and fixed within an hour. We also had programming problems at the same time that were absolutely not Y2K.

We saw the problems right away as the auditors are trained to check the data to out for any inconsistencies in the data, as most companies probably do.

From the problems I have seen reported on the news, IMHO opinion, they seem like the normal problems encountered day to day in any application. That is just my opinion. No programmer can tell you if it is actually Y2k related or not unless they are actually associated with the application, or something similar. That type of information I don't think you cant get from this forum.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Steve,

I was involved with a total y2k show stopper. It was with a remediated system, and the job crashed in production after running for 5 hours. It was dumped on my desk. For several days I didn't think it had anything to do with y2k, but it turned out to be caused by record lengths being increased due to date length changes resulting in extension records being placed out of sequence. It took 3 more days to diagnose and fix the problem. VERY VERY NASTY BUG. I wouldn't want more than one of these at a time.

billd

-- billy d (bdang@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Use a false posting handle, like Y2K Pro, or something...

like uh, Whopper Junior

-- (@ .), January 06, 2000.

Steve,

Just curious. Do you consider new, non-date related errors that were introduced because of remediation to be "Y2K" bugs?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), January 06, 2000.

billy d,

Yup, I double checked the same problem before turning the code loose. I figured if we had a problem on the input side, someon else that used any text files we were sending may have the same problems, but it all worked out okay.

TECH32:

It depends,really. I would have to say NO that they are not Y2K related if they are only as a result of remediation, but not date related. I don't consider a Y2K error unless it actually is related to a date change in the programming, IMHO. The remediation error could have cropped up during ANY software change totally unrelated to the date change.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Steve,

I see it differently. New errors were introduced into perfectly good systems during remediation that would NOT have been introduced if it hadn't for Y2K. I call that Y2K related.

Personally, as a long time programmer, just that fact that SO MANY programs were modified at once, often slammed back into production with adequate testing, was reason enough for me to start prepping. I mean, who care if they fixed a date bug if the system the program supports crashes anyway??

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), January 06, 2000.

That should read "WITHOUT adequate testing"..

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), January 06, 2000.

"Do you consider new, non-date related errors that were introduced because of remediation to be "Y2K" bugs?"

Would you be happier if we called them "iatrogenic casualties"?

Keeping in mind the fact that if not for the original (y2k) "ailment", the "patient" would never have been exposed to the iatrogenic event in the first place, of course...

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 06, 2000.

No issues here, amazingly enough. Some of my friends have mentioned some problems, but it's been really quiet around here.

-- Long Time Programmer (programmer@anonymous.com), January 06, 2000.

billy,

If you go overseas, and play with the big dogs, then uh make sure the country is not affiliated w/echelon, cause they share, that's the legal loophole: "No, your honor, we did not tap his phone, but Canada/England/___/___ provided us with this transcript/tape/___ of the call in question..."

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Steve... so may I assume that it is YOUR software that is calling my home and telling me what a great offer I am about to hear or is it you software that makes it damned near impossible for me to get a human being when I have a question for any company, anywhere these days?

Telemarketing should be illegal, IMnsHO.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

FOAF WARNING::::::::

Yes it's FOAF but one of my clients (a McKinBoozling) has a husband she hasn't seen in a while as he is working on a "very serious" problem causing the hubby's boss to "run around screaming at people".

Yupo, worth everything you paid for it, but just another piece of the scrap heap.

Chuck

And she sez it IS a Y2K problem

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 07, 2000.

OK, Chuck, I'll bite. What's a "McKinBoozling"?

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), January 07, 2000.

Programmers only know about their environment. I've seen three separate bugs (glitches? since when?) in our development environment. Two are "find and forget", one is costing us about ten seconds per person per day, until we move to a new system. None have knock on effects.

Or maybe I'm delusional. Yes, that's probably it.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

So far, the only two bugs I've seen in my job were vendor software. Most of the in house stuff was fixed when the Analyst and my predecessor started rewriting the code in 1996.

-- Tim the Evil Programmer (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), January 07, 2000.

Could one post with true anonimity from a local library? Wouldn't that be a bit like a payphone? If so, then perhaps those with some real facts to post might find that a safe zone. Just wondering.....Ohiomom

-- Ohiomom (mdanse@usa.net), January 07, 2000.