Serious question...why the continued talk about impending doom from Y2K effects...if it was going to happen it would have by now...lets instead analyze why the predictions were wrong and places like Italy didn't have much in the way of problems either...live and learn and all that...what say ye?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This is a sincere post, not a troll baiting. Please answer accordingly as an "expert" who has gone thru Y2K and has thoughts to share on this topic.

Thank you.

-- Programmer (codeslinger@home.now), January 11, 2000

Answers

Serious replies please!

-- Programmer (codeslinger@home.now), January 11, 2000.

Sir

If you have actually slung legacy COBOL code you wouldn't have asked that question. ANY IMS database programs accessed through COBOL HAD to be rewritten for expansion, date processing or not.

WAY too much programming to do in the time allotted, and the effects will not be and always were not going to be catastrophic in January. Doom does NOT have to be a CRACKTHWAP all at once thing. Degradation in efficiencies unto bankruptcy can take a while.

Chuck an old IMS design analyst

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 11, 2000.


They're operating manually. They have set back the date on their computers. They have a lot of stuff shut down, not operating. In the U.S., electricity demand is so low that a lot of utilities can shutdown temporarily for repairs, ie: the nuclear plants. We don't know the situation with U.S. refineries yet - no data out on production for the month. I'll bet it is practically nothing. There was enough gasoline in storage to carry us for a while. Railroads are coordinating everything via cellphone. Traffic has picked up on CSX in the last three days. They was very little traffic the first week.

Natural gas - most pumping in the midwest is done by very old very large diesel pumps. If there are any pipeline problems, they are being handled manually.

It's too early to know whether heavy duty manufacturing has all production up and running. It's too early to find out about inventory problems, delivery problems. Everyone had inventory stored to cover them for 4-6 weeks.

International - Does anyone know if they started up the foreign exchange transactions yet?

-- Y2kObserver (Y2kObserver@nowhere.com), January 11, 2000.


"Expert"? I hate that word because the media uses it these days to describe pretty much anyone who is willing to answer their stupid questions.

What do *you* mean by "expert"? If you're talking about the programmers that did remediation, I wouldn't expect them to be too forthcoming with information. For most of them, it is probably a breach of contract if they are found to be discussing details about the work they performed. Not worth jeopardizing their entire career.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 11, 2000.


In other words...

Doom doesn't necessarily come all at once.

-- it's coming (dont@you.worry), January 11, 2000.



"Doom" may never arrive -- but it's way too soon to be certain. What is certain that a lot of difficulties are being reported since 01/01/2000, and it's likely that at least as many are not being reported. Apparently the present level of difficulty is sustainable. I'm sure it's a great nuisance to those who have to deal with the problems.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 11, 2000.

Also see this thread:

"The January Italian Mystery"

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002IMX


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 11, 2000.

This is also worth a read:

"The Question of Italy: An Analysis"

http://www.year2000.com/y2kitaly.html


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 11, 2000.

Ed Yourdon mentions Italy a couple of times in his most recent essay:

"Move Over, Rodney Dangerfield -- You've Got Company"

http://www.yourdon.com/articles/y2krodney.html


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 11, 2000.

Chuck,

I program in IMS COBOL. You are incorrect. I am quite familiar with several large IMS COBOL computer systems. The ones I'm familiar with have been remediated just fine..and are running just fine. Keep in mind there is nothing inherent within the IMS database software that will choke on a date field. IMS doesn't know it's a date field. If the logic handling the date field is ok, the program is ok. You may have been an IMS design analyst way back when...but if you both talked to a data base analyst who currently works on IMS ssytems...and keep in mind that data stored and the processing that takes place on it is two separate things....plus...most of all....the proof is in the lack of problems. Your talk about these gradual degadations is bogus. This is not how IMS works or how IMS abends occur....you may HAVE KNOWN how to "design"...but that is just one piece of the puzzle.....the code works or it doesn't -- and it has been working. IMS heiarchtical databases do not have "macro" type fields within the database segments (i.e records)...the database doesn't know what's in a field...text, number, date...it's the code that processes it....and .....contrary to your OPINION that there is too much code to fix....the fact that there have not been many problems refutes your opinion.

This is not meant as a flame..just adressing the facts as an IMS programmer that's been working with IMS DB & DC for the last decade or so.....

-- Programmer (codeslinger@home.now), January 12, 2000.



* * * 20000112 Wednesday

Codeslinger:

In an AS/400e-based COBOL (~400,000 Lines Of Code [LOC]; poor configuration management system [CMS]) I did some Y2K work on, we found REAL date computation$ (dollar$) out of whack as late/far-down- the-road as January 1, 2002! I _am_ NOT kidding!!

The problem was an obscure (historical "backward looking") date routine that "rarely" gets executed for some (arcane) financial business forecasting the (financial) client required.

Turns out the routine was using the incorrect number (365!) of elapsed days during Y2K: Should have been 366 days. At fir$t blu$h thi$ may appear trivial ( 1/365 v$. 1/366 ), however, when you $tart factoring million$/billion$ of bu$ine$$/gubmint-related dollar$, an error of le$$ than 1% can amount to $ome REAL MONEY! Bank$ter$ have heartattack$ over US$0.01 di$crepancie$!

So! How many test dates were/are enough for Y2K? Nobody knows. The documentation stinks and there never was, nor ever will be, enough time for exhaustive, end-to-end system testing procedures!

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.


Codeslinger used to post some annoying troll stuff here months ago.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.

Hello,

My my....just checked back in here before heading out the door. This is my last day here. The post to this thread are interesting. And this IS my last post (on my last day of posting here) to your board under any handle from any IP, FWIW. In fact, I won't even be back to feed any of you crow next year. You people have become a pitiful bore to me. Yuck.

FWIW, I wonder why some of you attribute so much to a poster based on their IP. Do you think if some poster post from a US Army IP that they are a "shill" of the Joint Chiefs or for that matter ANY portion of the Dept. of Defense. No. Neither am I any type of "shill". Just a technical "grunt" who happens to post as an individual for his individual reasons from wherever it's convienient. I shake my head at how you people trample on civil and privacy rights the way you rail about the constitution. It just fits you so.

I suspect this is just an attempt to boister your own collective sense that you and this forumn are important; and that "TPTB" pay attention to you. After all, with the lack of bad news, what else do you have to cling to, knowing much crow will be served up here next year? Well, I don't know for sure, but I doubt that they do -- except maybe the FBI! I think many of you are dangerous nut cases. I used to work at an insurance company. I guess if I had been posting from there I would be accused of being an "insurance shill", right? And the next industry? Never mind; doesn't matter. You people are mentally pathetic and quite lame brained.

FWIW, as I've stated, I've used this forumn as part of my personal, individual "portal" into the various "meme's" that are part of the Y2K mentality. The place I work at is irrelevant and not a party to anything I do. I'll bet this really dissapoints some of you who cling to various delusions that "TPTB" are trying to "disrupt" you. I doubt it, personally. In fact, here, at STINKBOMB 2000, "dispuption" is defined as anything that does not agree with the doomer delusions running rampant here, IMO. I can't recall any, let alone many, charges of "disruption" leveled at any doomer post attacking "pollies". It would be a waste to have a conversation with you. That's part of the reason I'm leaving this forumn here also today. With most of you anti-society mentally rabid folks, you don't hear, see or think anything except what you want to...based on what you think fits and supports your doomer delusions. Sad. Pathetic.

Many of you have served as excellent "probe material". Thank you. Also, my various handles have simply been "personas" designed by me for specific "probe effect". They worked quite nicely for their intended purpose; nothing more. To any of you who think you know the "real me", all I can say is:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! (as Genius would put it).

It took a while before I decided to write you off as being mentally as bad as many of you apparently are. In essence, Y2K is simply the latest flagpole to rally around for lots of you. After it turns out not to be TEOTWAWKI, I'm sure you will gravitate to whatever feeds your various "memes" of pessimism, paranoia, and anti-society leanings. Sad. Really sad. You all, as a collective group have certianly diminished my view of humanity as a whole -- at least the parts of it you have revealed yourselves to represent.

Again, thank you all for expressing yourselves. Wish I could say it's been nice to meet you. But it hasn't been. It has, however, been educational. And, no, there is no "report" of you to anyone. Again, this has been my own little jaunt into the Y2K/doomer "meme". Sorry to dissapoint you. But, I know that "denial" is the strongest proof available to your collective delusions. So I leave with a chuckle at your final "shill" meme idiocy. I didn't realize how delusional apparently "normal everyday" people could be. Good bye. Good riddence. Yuck!

YUCK!! I think I'll go home and shower now.

Sincerly,

-- Genius (codeslinger@work.now), November 12, 1999.

Link

-- (for@the.record), January 12, 2000.


I will answer as serious:

One your bias is showing by lumping any with concerns as doomers. Concerns about systems is not the same as waiting for any nearby nuke plant to super nova. One of two systems controlling a critical operation where I work is showing 1970. This is a tested (I was there) system that checked out ok. Since this function is not date sensitive except for the logging of comunications with other systems this is not a show stopper.

My concerns expressed many times has always been the data after the rollover. I was concerned about possible problems with electric generation but not amazed the lights stayed on. In the company where I work decisions are made from on high (don't ask its a sad story) based on the numbers that are fed by all the operating systems. If they get bad data there are enough nitwits to push the bad decisions back down to production, raw material ordering and shipping. Not to mention the transfers of money (my pay, our suppliers, customers billing).

It is the information because information runs our society, the machine age was yesterday. If that information is bad then it tells two computers, which tell two computers and pretty soon you have a horrible shampoo commercial and major problems.

Declare victory if you must, but I will wait until at the end of March to place the stone over the bug one and for all. If this is foolish and overkill to you, maybe its just caution to me.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), January 12, 2000.


Maybe he's being more real on the Debonker forum where he's offering Laura Illogical a loving, guiding, yet firm hand...rewards and pleasures...along with spankings.

-- (He's also@perv.yep), January 12, 2000.


In fact, here, at STINKBOMB 2000,

Yup.. straight from De buncker... another cpr wanabe....

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), January 12, 2000.


codeslinger, genius, whoever he is just bolsters my confidence in the serious posters here. He said this is his last post and I am not a betting man, but I would bet all that he will be back. Has anyone else beside me noticed the mentality of these people who keep telling us to forget about Y2K and move on....and yet they seem incapable of doing so themselves? Serious posters, keep up the good work. I spend about 80% of my on line time here. The news is good to excellent...at least from the serious posters. I also have lmao at times: the dry wit, sarcasm, blowing holes in overblown pollies, etc. I am not a techie...but I love the analases and first-hand accounts from housewives and farmers to IT professionals. Thanks one and all, Kyle

p.s. I don't believe for a moment Yourdon or Hyatt were in this for the money. Maybe they made some. I don't know. But, I am broke and still a pot that can't call the kettle black. I suppose the ones who dump on Ed, Michael,etc. are without sin.

-- Kyle (fordtbonly@aol.com), January 12, 2000.


LOL! I saw that, too. He's trying so hard to come off like a "dominant", all the while b-e-g-g-i-n-g her to e-mail him. It's too funny! And, she's posting about how very very pretty she is, and that she will sacrifice her life to help people by getting Ed Yourdon and closing down TB2000. Truly, I think they are both mental...and possibly dangerous. I'm surprised cpr or Doc haven't told them to get a chat room!

-- (laughing@ROFL.MAO), January 12, 2000.

Codeslinger,

I was MUCH more concerned with the older programs which did not use data dictionary technology, as well as those who DID use data dictionary technology as it became popular, but still used the REDEFINES capability in COBOL to get to the variables they wanted to use. MOST of the programmers I worked with enjoyed the data dictionary tech as it was being installed but they didn't go back and rewrite their earlier programs to use it throughout the program.

The major concern I had was that many of the programs I had contact with used specific, programmer calculated displacements to get to the data in the records that they wanted. Because of this, when you expand a segment to include a 4 digit year, everything to the right of that is displaced 2 bytes, a factor that the programmer doing remediation had to take into account as he did his remediation. thus EVERY program that looked at a specific segment that had been expanded had to be re-worked to take into account the displacement, regardless of whether or not the date fields were ever looked at.

the Date field may have shown up in the original data definitons, but as the records/segments dropped into the REDEFINES statements, and the record became a TRASH-1 PIC X(145) FILLER, WORK-DATA PIC X(5), TRASH-2 PIC X(150) FILLER for the newly 300 byte data record (instead of 298) then things would be VERY interesting if the program logic wsa not examined and remediated.

WAY too many shops, using young, data element oriented programmers felt that all they had to do was recompile using expanded data dictionary libraries, and then run the scanners so they could get to the date logic in the programs. Because they are used to handling data by unique ELEMENTS as opposed to by the byte, this made sense to them and left a lot of programs untouched.

BTWE I suspect unremediated code of this type would probably only give level 4 "errors" and therefor be ignored by the programmers. Until the data gets destroyed or the program comes down with something just BARELY out of range.

Chuck who admits that it has been a couple decades.

BTW No flame perceived. ALWAYS happy to be updated. C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 12, 2000.


Good Bye SnotSlinger.

-- grab a hankie (and.blow@your.nose), January 12, 2000.

Sheesh! After that re-posted tirade, I'm seriously considering changing my handle! Please don't confuse me with the ranter above.

Coder (who writes, not slings)

-- Coder (Coder@Work.Now), January 12, 2000.


Aside from calling himself "genius", codeslinger calls himself "dominant sniper". Kinda makes you feel queasy, looking into his imagination like that.

Chuck - he probably knows a lot about the IMS that his particular shop uses, and thinks thats how the whole world works. You sound a little closer to remediation reality, and closer to the maintenance world as I've seen it.

Let's see, now, it's January 12. Any runs that blew on January 3 would be getting near the end of the deniability period. Any weekend runs that blew would still be within the normal range of batch processing - you can easily delay batch runs for two or three days. So companies that have been fatally injured by data corruption (if any) have not yet recognized that at the CEO level.

Somewhere, in an unknown number of companies, are status reports, aghast disbelief and requests for confirmation, confirmation, hurried conferences, urgent commands in a strong, clear voice, patient explanations of reality, repeated commands in a louder voice, repeated explanations, threats to fire, resignations, calling in sick, calling in sick again, asking the CIO to take a look ... [insert several panicky moves here] ... notifying the CEO that the company is hosed ... [more footwork] ... making a public announcement, all are working their way through the mill.

I do not want the world to end, I do not want a depression, I want Y2k to pass with nary a ripple. I have other plans for my life that do not include a feudal serfdom grubbing for potatoes. But I'm not breathing a sigh of relief until March or so.

It's just way too soon.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 12, 2000.


From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Laura to Ken: you need a character witness regarding your e-activities, let me know. I'd be happy to be a reference for you.

ROFL!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 13, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ