Resume Man's view of his own Utility to the end.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

TXU FACTS VS. STEVIE HELL-R

READ THE "30 YEAR EXPERT'S" SO-CALLED "EVALUATION" /OPINION (LEFT ON HIS WEB SITE LONG AFTER THE TEXAS UTILITIES POST BELOW).

WHO'S JUDGEMENT IS QUESTIONABLE?? TXU WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE LINE OR A "STEVE HELLER" WHO'S "EXPERTISE" ON UTILITY COMPANIES  COMES FROM WHAT?? A FREAKING 1997 TALK AT A LUNCH OF A PROFESSIONAL I.T. GROUP THAT I, WROTE THE Y2K WEB SITE FOR AS A VOLUNTEER??

TAKE YOUR CHOICE: TXU VS: HELLER'S PAGE ON TEXAS UTILITES FROM HIS **"NEW"** y2K WEB SITE:

NOTE THE FREAKING DATE: (9/19/97) IN NON-KAPP-COMPLIANT ..*** TWO yy FORM***:


http://www.koyote.com/users/stheller/y2k70921.htm

A report on electric utilities and the Year 2000 problem
by Steve Heller
Susan and I went to a meeting of the Dallas-Fort Worth Data Administration Management Association Year 2000 users group today (9/19/97). The main speaker was Bob Schuster, the system test manager for the Year 2000 Information Technology project at Texas Utilities (TU). He was accompanied by John Carrier, the Y2K program manager for TU, which is the holding company for a number of electric utilities.

His presentation was interesting on a number of counts:


They are taking this situation very seriously and have a comprehensive plan for remediating and testing all of their business systems. The plan is well underway and they expect to be done by the end of next year, which allows all of 1999 for integration testing.

They originally planned to divide all programs into two groups: "assumed compliant" and "assumed non-compliant". The programs in the former group were those written from scratch after all the databases and other tools they used were compliant. Unfortunately, they discovered that there weren't any programs that could be assumed to be compliant, because even those programs that used only compliant tools had been written in such a way that they weren't compliant. An example of the latter was that the underlying database uses 4-digit years, but the programmer copied the year value to a 2-digit field and then did date arithmetic with it. Therefore, they have to treat all programs as being non-compliant.

They are going to be using windowing techniques (treating every two-digit year value xx from a certain year onward as meaning 19xx, and every two-digit date before that number as meaning 20xx). Although they recognize that it would be better to expand all the dates to use 4-digit years, they are taking this windowing approach because they have 66,000 files that contain two-digit year dates. If they were to expand the dates, they wouldn't be able to put the programs back in service as they were fixed, but would have to maintain two sets of programs and two sets of files until everything was done. They don't have enough resources to do that.

This group will not be able to fix anything that isn't Y2K related. Any other errors found in the code will be thrown back to the development groups for fixing, because they don't have enough time to do that.

They are not going to do any capacity testing to make sure that the programs will still be able to handle the load after making fixes to the year calculations, because they don't have enough time to do that.
But possibly the most interesting thing was what he did not mention: how they were doing with their embedded controller problems, which of course are the kinds of problems that would stop power from being produced or distributed. Here is a nearly verbatim rendition of the exchange that followed when I asked about this issue about half-way into the meeting:
Q: What are you doing about your embedded systems exposure?

A: We have just begun the assessment phase for our embedded systems exposure. Every piece of equipment that has a microprocessor in it will have to be tested and possibly fixed. We don't know how big a task this will be yet, because we haven't finished the assessment phase.

Q: But why didn't you start the embedded systems work first? What good will it do you if you get every business system fixed but you can't generate or distribute power?

A: We can't figure that out either.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX












 

http://www.txu.com/contentwithtoc.asp?section=05&page=0501
Year 2000 FAQ - June, 1999

Q. What is the overall status of the TXU Year 2000 effort at the end of May? TXU's monthly report to the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) indicates that remediation and testing of mission critical items is at 93%.

Q. What is the readiness status, at the end of May, of TXU's fossil-fueled steam generating plants? Forty-seven (47) of TXU's fifty-three (53) fossil steam generating units have been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. The generating units are capable of producing 15,500 Megawatts, nearly 30% more than TXU's normal load requirements for the January 1st timeframe.

Work on the remaining six (6) units is scheduled to be complete by the end of June.

Q. What is the status of the facilities from which TXU purchases power? TXU has 1,164 Megawatts of generation under contract for purchased power. Based on the reports provided to NERC by the companies that operate these facilities, 816 Megawatts have been determined to be Y2K Ready. 270 Megawatts will be upgraded during a Fall scheduled overhaul. The contract on the remaining 78 Megawatts of purchased capacity will expired in September 1999.

Previously released information:

Q. What is the readiness status, at the end of April, of Texas Utilities' fossil-fueled steam generating plants? Forty (40) of Texas Utilities' fifty-three (53) fossil-fueled steam generating units have been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. Testing on the remaining thirteen (13) units is scheduled to be completed by June 1999.

Q. What is readiness status of Texas Utilities' quick start combustion turbines? All fifteen (15) identical combustion turbines in TU's generation fleet have been determined to be Y2K Ready. These combustion turbines make up approximately 4 % of TU's generation capabilities.

Q. How much of Texas Utilities generation equipment is Y2K Ready? Texas Utilities already has over 13,000 Megawatts of generating equipment ready for the Year 2000. TU's normal load requirement for the January 1st timeframe is approximately 12,000 Megawatts. By the end June, nearly 20,000 Megawatts of generating equipment is scheduled to be Y2K Ready.

Q. What is the status of Texas Utilities mission critical business applications such as finance and accounting, procurement and inventory systems, customer information systems and personnel systems? TU's core mission critical business systems have been tested and certified compliant for the span of century. Enhancements to these systems will continue to be tested and verified compliant until the application code is frozen from additional changes later this year.

Q. What is the status of TU's mainframe computer hardware? TU's mainframe computer hardware has received all necessary upgrades to make it Y2K Ready. All hardware associated with TU's data center has been assessed as being Y2K Ready. Testing of the hardware and mainframe software is being planned for later this year to verify compliance.

Q. How much of the embedded system testing work is complete in your fossil-fueled steam generating plants? Thirty-three (33) of Texas Utilities' fossil-fueled steam generating plants have been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. Testing on the remaining twenty (20) units is planned for the spring overhaul season of 1999 with anticipated completion by June 1999.

Fifteen (15) fossil-fueled steam generating units have been tested for critical dates "on-line" while generating electricity. No significant problems have been identified during either "on-line" or "off-line" testing.

Q. Does Texas Utilities utilize quick start combustion turbines in its generation equipment and what is their status? TU has fifteen (15) identical combustion turbines in its generation fleet. These combustion turbines make up approximately 4 % of TU's generation capabilities. Five (5) of the fifteen (15) CT's have been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. The remaining units are scheduled to be tested and verified Y2K Ready by the end of April 1999.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of assessment and testing of equipment in the Transmission Business Unit? The current transmission system control and data acquisition software and hardware (SCADA) has been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. However, a new system is scheduled to be fully operational by the Fall of 1999. This new system is currently undergoing Y2K testing.

No remediation of transmission relay systems has been necessary. Testing has shown all protective relay systems to be Y2K Ready. Some upgrades to Digital Fault Recording (DFR) equipment have been performed to improve data flow and to increase TU's ability to analyze transmission faults. These systems were Y2K Ready prior to the upgrade and remain Y2K Ready.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of assessment and testing of equipment in the Lone Star Gas distribution system? The gas system control and data acquisition software (SCADA) has been tested and determined to be Y2K compliant. There are a small number of Remote Terminal Units (RTU's) that interface with SCADA that will be upgraded. This work is scheduled for completion by June 1999.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of the assessment and testing of equipment in the TU Electric distribution system? The TU Electric system control and date acquisition software and hardware has been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. There are no mission critical field devices scheduled for replacement. Software upgrades are planned for various diagnostic systems. Some meters are also being upgraded. All work is scheduled for completion by June 1999.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of the assessment and testing of equipment in the Pipeline Business Unit? The two gas control application systems are being upgraded; one to eliminate potential Y2K impacts and the other due to obsolescence. Approximately 10% of the electronic flow meters will be upgraded. Fourteen (14) Remote Terminal Units (RTU's) will be replaced. Firmware upgrades have also been installed on RTU's throughout the pipeline system to ensure Y2K readiness. In addition to device testing and remediation, integrated site testing is being performed at several key storage and mainline compression locations.

Approximately 95% of the testing work in the Pipeline Business Unit has been completed. The remaining testing work is scheduled to be complete by June 1999.

Q. What operational components of the Lone Star Pipeline and TUFCO systems are being reviewed for operational readiness, as part of your Year 2000 program? TU is carefully scrutinizing all aspects of the gas receipt, transmission, and delivery process. This includes service to industrial end-users and interconnecting pipelines.

Q. Relative to the Year 2000 program, what is being done to insure reliable gas flow on the Lone Star Pipeline and TUFCO systems? TU is reviewing all its operations (including Pipeline-related) for embedded systems that have microprocessors which use 'date' logic.

Q. Do you expect any problems with fuel delivery to Texas Utilities power plants as a result of Year 2000? Approximately 15% of our generation is produced by nuclear fuel, 40% by lignite coal, 35% by natural gas and the remainder is purchased power.

Our nuclear units will be refueled in 1999 and will not require refueling until late in the year 2000.

Assessment work thus far in our mining operation has not identified any equipment that is affected by the Y2K issue.

We are working with our gas suppliers to determine the reliability of their fuel supplies. We expect no problems and strict safety measures are in place.

Q. What work is being performed at Comanche Peak? Much of the work being accomplished at Comanche Peak is being performed in conjunction with the corporate-wide Year 2000 Project. Embedded systems relating to plant control, monitoring, and emergency response are being evaluated under a Y2K plan specifically established to meet the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Q. What is the status of work at Comanche Peak? At Comanche Peak, inventories have been taken and detailed assessments of Y2K compliance have been performed. Several systems have been tested to determine their Y2K readiness. As a result of the assessment and testing work, nineteen (19) design modifications to the plant have been planned. These projects will be completed during the refueling outage of Unit 2 in April 1999 with one exception. The remaining project will be completed during the refueling outage of Unit 1 in September 1999.

Q. How are business applications evaluated and tested? Business applications are segregated into various modules. The modules are evaluated for Y2K compliance, any needed remediation is performed, and then they are tested. The tests are based on set criteria which includes testing on several dates with known test data. Once the modules pass all tests, they are placed back into production as compliant products. Once all modules in a system have been proven compliant, the entire system is tested and certified.

Q. How much code is being changed at Texas Utilities plants and other operations facilities? The work being performed at Texas Utilities plants and other field operations facilities is primarily embedded system work. This work is being coordinated with vendors who supplied the equipment originally. If code changes are required, generally the vendor is performing the work and supplying a compliant product to Texas Utilities.

Q. Has Texas Utilities tested embedded systems? We have tested a number of embedded systems in our plants, in our transmission and distribution areas, and in our pipeline operations. The plant tests have been end-to-end tests with all systems working together. Thus far we have found very few systems where functionality is affected as their clocks roll through the critical dates. In some cases, we see some date stamping and trending errors (which technically makes them non-compliant) but system functionality is not affected. We intend to continue to test our critical systems.

Q. How much of the embedded system testing work is complete? Twenty-five (25) of Texas Utilities' fossil steam generating plants have been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. Testing on the remaining twenty-seven (27) units is planned for the spring overhaul season of 1999 with anticipated completion by June 1999.

Six (6) steam generating units have been tested for critical dates "on-line" while generating electricity. The results of "on-line" testing have been identical to those obtained during off-line tests.

Approximately 60% of the testing work in the Pipeline business units has been completed. The remaining testing work is scheduled to recommence following the winter peak load period and to be complete by June 1999.

Testing on equipment in the transmission and distribution areas is substantially complete and all remaining work in scheduled for completion by June 1999.

Q. Does Texas Utilities use turbine monitors to diagnose turbine vibration and other turbine conditions? Texas Utilities uses turbine supervisory and monitoring systems on all our power plants. Some are compliant and others are not. We are testing and analyzing these systems in the same manner as our other embedded systems.

Q. How is power generation managed to prevent and/or address service interruptions? Texas Utilities employees work constantly to ensure there are no interruptions. Weather has a significant impact on the load requirements of the customers in the Texas Utilities system. In moderate weather conditions, system reserves are higher than in extreme conditions. Our planning target is that we have a minimum of 15% generation reserve at all times to meet changes in load and power delivery conditions.

Q. Are there significant remediation items relating to embedded systems that remain to be completed in 1999? Due to equipment overhaul schedules, some work is being extended into 1999. Controls systems on seventeen (17) generating stations are being upgraded. Two gas control systems are being upgraded in the pipeline area. The Company's 900 megahertz radio system is planned for upgrading. All work is scheduled for completion by June 1999. The design modifications to Comanche Peak are also planned for implementation as indicated in the Q&A listed above.

This is a massive undertaking that will require a huge amount of work to accomplish. But TU began work on this project early and is well positioned to meet the challenge. The company is working hard to make a smooth, trouble-free transition to the next millennium.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000

Answers

So, what is the "point"?

Heller continued to spew garbage online to the end and now cries "Y2k is dead".
ALl he ever had to do (or any of the Zombies from Yourdon on down) was go back and check his "source" for a "status report".
Instead, Heller continued to leave his "view" of TXU on his web site UNREVISED even though TXU had the complete FAQ online for all to see.
It gets worse. In Aug. 1998 ....more than 16 months before CDC, TXU appeared at a Congressional hearing at Eastland CC in Mesquite in the afternoon in easy driving distance of Heller. Two spokes people for TXU told Congressmen Horn and Sessions that TXU would be ready.
Later, they told me privately that one utility had been running one entire power plant with ALL dates set into 2000 and TXU would soon repeat that (along with 7 other utilities). That was reported in 1999 by NERC and still the "Embedded MYTHS" went on.
Again, Heller has no one to blame for his **ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT**. The INFORMATION WAS OUT THERE TO READ AND USE. He chose to do neither it would seem at best.
At WORST (for him or Yourdon or the rest of them), they did read it and for whatever reasons, chose to reject it or ignore it.
I will maintain forever more, that there was NO WAY that a man with Yourdon's contacts in the I.T. industry COULD NOT KNOW that Y2k remediation was far beyond what he lead others to believe as he summarized in "I know what I know".
His current stance of "Y2k is over, move on" IS IRRESPONSIBLE for it uses the "dodge" he set up "everyone should take repsonsibility for their own acts". What Yourdon's dodge denies is that HE was responsible FOR THE MISLEADING OF OTHERS WITH **MIS INFORMATION** up to and INCLUDING THE CONGRESS OF THE US and the ADMINISTRATION.
And so were many more from EY down to the gutter level of Jim Lord, Hyatt and the McElvaney's of the world. Gary North comes from a nether world below all of even those.


-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

PETA has initiated litigation against cpr for beating a dead horse.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 23, 2000.

But they decided to drop the case when they realized that he's just a "sick puppy."

-- (lol@lol.lol), June 24, 2000.

Again, Heller has no one to blame for his **ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT**. The INFORMATION WAS OUT THERE TO READ AND USE. He chose to do neither it would seem at best.
At WORST (for him or Yourdon or the rest of them), they did read it and for whatever reasons, chose to reject it or ignore it.
I will maintain forever more, that there was NO WAY that a man with Yourdon's contacts in the I.T. industry COULD NOT KNOW that Y2k remediation was far beyond what he lead others to believe as he summarized in "I know what I know".

There's a couple of things to keep in mind, here. First, Ed Yourdon had already said in one of his essays last year (in March) that he was not expecting TEOTWAWKI. Secondly, there hadn't been as much progress by late summer of last year as one might think...

http://www.usa.capgemini.com/news/pr99.asp?id=104

(begin snip)

Fewer Than Half of Major Firms Anticipate Full Year 2000 Compliance in Critical Systems by Year's End

Three-Quarters Have Experienced a Year 2000-Related Failure; Firming Their Grip on Year 2000 Problem Solving, More Top Managers Plan to Run Millennium Crisis Centers

Fewer than half of America's largest companies (48 percent) expect all of their critical systems to be prepared for the Year 2000, according to a new survey by Cap Gemini America, Inc., an information technology and management consulting leader.

One in five companies (18 percent) expect that 75 percent or less of their critical systems will be "completely tested and compliant" by December 31, 1999. Thirty-six percent expect between 76 and 99 percent of their applications to be ready for Year 2000, and two percent anticipate completing work on 50 percent or less of their systems.

Three-quarters (75 percent) of respondents have experienced a "Year 2000-related failure," up slightly from 72 percent last quarter. Fifty-five percent reported such errors last December. The most frequent failures involved "financial miscalculation or loss" (92 percent), followed by "processing disruptions" (84 percent), "customer service problems" (38 percent) and "logistics/supply chain problems" (34 percent). Two percent reported Year 2000-related "business disruptions." Virtually every respondent (99 percent) anticipates "an increase in systems failures into the remainder of 1999 and beyond."

(end snip)

That was in U.S. Countries like Germany, Russia and China were said to be lagging in remediation compared with here. It was clear by the summer of 1999 that most of the U.S. would have electricity in Jan of 2000, but the risk of some significant disruptions remained plausible even though the odds of TEOTWAWKI by that point were quite small.

Everyone knew that a significant amount of Y2k work would be finished by the end of 1999. But even though say the mortgage company company had finished its Y2k fixes, my life still could have been impacted by Y2k if my water company wasn't ready or if Brazil were unable to ship ball bearing to the U.S.

Complacency about Y2k was not warranted, even in late 1999. Possible hazmat incidents here and there, shortages and losing my job were all things that still concerned me at the end of 1999.



-- (Planning@was.prudent), June 24, 2000.


Susan and I went to a meeting of the Dallas-Fort Worth Data Administration Management Association Year 2000 users group today (9/19/97). The main speaker was Bob Schuster, the system test manager for the Year 2000 Information Technology project at Texas Utilities (TU). He was accompanied by John Carrier, the Y2K program manager for TU, which is the holding company for a number of electric utilities.

Ah yes, I have attended a few meetings like the one described herein.

Q: What are you doing about your embedded systems exposure?

A: We have just begun the assessment phase for our embedded systems exposure. Every piece of equipment that has a microprocessor in it will have to be tested and possibly fixed. We don't know how big a task this will be yet, because we haven't finished the assessment phase.

Q: But why didn't you start the embedded systems work first? What good will it do you if you get every business system fixed but you can't generate or distribute power?

A: We can't figure that out either.

And, inevitably, there is always at least one "Helter" in attendance: The self-appointed "saviour" of society, the messiah of the masses - complete with quips and quotes and questions that "couldn't be answered by them, so they must be hiding something!"

Alas, pathetic, sad...mere words are not enough to describe the emptiness that must pervade the disillusioned souls whose porr, little sickly meme - that tottered along with a distinct limp throughout the last half of 1999 (thanks to the JoAnne Non-Effect predictions proving to one and nearly all that Y2k was just going to be another day) has at long last fallen over, exhausted, dead.

Ironically, Mr. Yourdom has stated it succinctly: "Y2k is over."

It was a good meme...may it rest in peace.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.


offoffoff




And, there was never a reason to prepare.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.

http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/0525met60cityy2k.htm

Council members worry services won't be Y2K-ready by Jan. 1 after hearing report

Staff say it's behind, won't finish some projects until November or December

05/25/99

By Nora Lopez / The Dallas Morning News

Several Dallas City Council members are concerned that some city services may not be Y2K ready when the new year starts.

All city operations were supposed to be Y2K compliant by the end of July, giving staff members a five-month cushion to work out any glitches.

But on Monday, members of the council's Finance and Audit Committee were told that some systems probably won't be ready until November or December.

"Somebody lied to us," said council member Alan Walne, who appeared visibly upset. "What are we supposed to do if in December those systems aren't ready?"

City staff members acknowledged they were running behind on some projects, but they said most of the remaining problems are minor and should not affect city services.

"The critical projects have been completed," said Dan McFarland, the city's chief information officer who is overseeing the Y2K project. "There are still some small items that need work, but it's not going to stop the city from functioning."

Mr. McFarland, who took over the project a month ago, said he is confident the city's computers will be able to handle the Y2K problem by the end of the year. He said city technicians have been writing software since early 1996 that will enable computers to recognize the difference between the year 2000 and 1900 and keep city computers running.

But Mr. Walne and other members of the finance committee remained concerned about the delays.

"This is so critical," said Mayor Pro Tem Mary Poss, chairwoman of the city's Finance and Audit Committee. "The water system, traffic lights, all of those things are controlled by computers. And it concerns me that this is the first time we're being told that we're experiencing some delays."

The council members were particularly concerned about delays in projects previously identified as being a priority, such as the water department.

Three systems in that department - water purification, wastewater treatment and water pumping - are being targeted for completion in November and December. But city officials said the chances that residents won't be able to get water Jan. 1 are minimal because most of the unfinished projects are back-up systems.

"It's going to continue to pump water," Mr. McFarland said. "All of the changes have already been made to the primary system. The very, very worst-case scenario would be that if something happened to the primary system and if the back-up system didn't have all the changes, then potentially there could be a problem pumping water. But we have seven months to square it away."

Water department officials also said later that all three of the systems could be operated manually if necessary.

Other projects on the priority list that have been delayed include the installation of a new mainframe computer, which would handle all of the city's main applications, including payroll, police and fire dispatch. Officials estimate completion of that project by the end of September.

Mr. McFarland said he did not anticipate any problems with that project, because all of the computer programs have been tested and many have been certified as being Y2K ready.

"We've tested the applications and the operating systems," Mr. McFarland said. "All we have to do is put the new mainframe in and bingo, it's ready to go. I think we're as well-prepared, if not more than, many businesses out there."

Robert O'Neal, director of research and information services for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, said Dallas was well- prepared for a city its size.

He said delays are not unusual.

"It just shows the detail in which the city is going through its system and ensuring that it is Y2K ready," Mr. O'Neal said. "Dallas has really gone above and beyond what other organizations are doing."

-- (May@25.1999), June 24, 2000.


>> And, there was never a reason to prepare. <<

This is what is generally called "20-20 hindsight." It assumes that, given a particular outcome, any conclusion prior to that outcome that did not fir with the eventual outcome, was baseless. That is simply wrong.

It falls within the range of normal human activity to form plans for the future, based on insufficient knowledge to accurately predict that future. The fact that those whose conclusions were proved correct by the course of events were correct, cannot be ascribed to their perfect foresight. In the case of Y2K, perfect foresight was not possible, because perfect information waas not available.

I will gladly state that Andy Ray drew conclusions from the available evidence that proved to be more accurate than the conclusions drawn by others who frequent this forum. But to say that "no reason" existed to prepare for an perfectly unknown eventuality is simply to engage in fallacy.

Of course, Andy Ray prefers to embrace this fallacy, because it flatters his sense of infallabililty.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 24, 2000.


Brian,

Are you sure it isn't just that Andy Ray is a phallic kind of guy?

-- Andy is one hard up dude (or@woman.who.envies.penises), June 24, 2000.


Brian:

Once you dismiss Andy Ray's slogans, things get messy. There's a big difference between inability to predict the future in detail, and inability to predict at all. We never did successfully define "preparation", you know.

So we had FEMA talking about 3 days of food, Decker talking about staying out of debt, and Steve Heller talking about preserving the technology to build simple tools with which the few survivors worldwide could get civilization rebooted!

I don't think Andy Ray is talking about FEMA or Decker type preparations. And I agree with him that Heller level preparations were strongly contraindicated. Over the course of about 3 years, the level of "prudent" preparation relative to what we learned (if we paid any attention at all) continued to drop, eventually reaching the point where y2k itself was a very minor factor in the general policy of being cautious.

I know several people who kept a watchful eye on the situation, ready to stock up at any sign that the trend was reversing but unwilling to commit too early (as I did). When it became clear that nothing was happening or was going to happen, they lost interest. So Andy Ray is correct that it became clear to the, uh, normal people that preparation (to any unusual degree) wasn't required while there was still plenty of time to react had the situation ever looked like it might be necessary.

I agree with you that slogans are always misleading.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 24, 2000.



Brian,

Lucky? Hardly.....What good is ANY news story without perspective? Like reading statistics. Without proper placement, information is many times less than no information at all. In the case of the typical Y2k doomer, it was misleading completely. Most will not even read a long post, let alone go and do some independent research. The hucksters know this and count on most being dumb and lazy. NEVER assume the pollies just were lucky, ditch that one. Many of us knew for certain Y2k was not only not worthy of preparations, but largely a Ruse, a Hoax. If you refuse to be THE expert, the supposed experts around will eat your lunch, is this the way you want to live your life, as a stoolie?

I would suggest you read this story from 1986,,,here. Read the IBM response carefully and see if you sense anything really new about what would be coined "Y2k" a decade later. Stop on any terms you do not understand before you continue on with the reading. Using Whatis.com should be useful in understanding some of the terms. This document is historic in the grand scheme of what became Y2k, see if you decern the deeper connections and importance.

I would hope you understand Y2k was a known back as far as 1964 by the very folks selling the systems which WERE the most at risk due to custom applications running on their platforms. They had concerns, but short of on-site visits to their customers, had a pretty good clue what and who were at risk. As even the doomers now know, Y2k risk resided almost exclusively in large older mainframe computer applications.

I will not even go into the psychological aspects of Y2k and all that. What is critical to understand, is most doomers had not a clue what they were reading, and most of it was spun crud basically. Most of it relied upon the end-reader being a misinformed, illinformed, and technically illiterate person. When challenged with this by the informed, these people then acted defensive. They did not want the truth, they DID NOT. They wanted what mirrored their desires, their biases, their yearn for a simpler time. Your information was very wrong which lead to predictions which to an imformed person looked ludicrous.

Do not believe a Polly was lucky, the results should indicate this is an assumption(a rationalization of fools)to somehow answer why the doomer was wrong. Your clue should be to degree of correctness. Doomers weren't wrong, they were not even close. Reason? many, but none more than the fact they were in no position to Get It. Fault lies in themselves. While one needed to expend some effort and dig, anyone of average intelligence could have figured out the Gary North's and Ed Yourdon's had their heads up their gazoos.

Now with all that said, why don't the WRONG ever ask the RIGHT, how they knew? Easy buying the doom scenario, many did, but what did the polly know so completely? and why don't they ask?

Well what many of us knew was this...Y2k has been an ongoing issue for at least THIRTY YEARS. We had a track record to look at for answers, for clues to exposure, to look at for impact, and many of us concluded it would be handled(even in a growing incident model) like it has been for the prior 3 decades. To believe otherwise was to believe in fiction. History had shown Y2k issues to be rather trivial and not threating to much of anything in most cases. Simplistic answer, but basically true.

Now if you want more, just ask, I have plenty. Again, please give-up the lucky crap.

-- Polly (polly@thisboard.now), June 25, 2000.


For more about the history of Y2k, including IBM, also see the January, 1999 Vanity Fair article:

http://www.wild2k.com/database/vanityfair.html

IBM, however, was taking Y2K quite seriously, and as far back as October 1995 had announced a series of steps to "assist customers in timely Year 2000 transitions." That IBM had played a leading role in creating the need for those transitions-and faced the prospect of whopping lawsuits wasn't mentioned. But the company left no doubt that big trouble was coming. "The problem is large; it's complex," IBM's press release quoted de Jager as saying. "IBM is right ... to address this issue today."

See the October, 1995 press release from IBM:

http://www.year2000.com/archive/ibmy2k.html

(begin snip)

Armonk, New York, October 30, 1995 ... Recognizing that the turn of the century poses a significant challenge for the Information Technology industry, IBM today announced it will provide customers with a comprehensive set of services, tools and support for their Year 2000 transitions.

For more than four decades, industry and businesses have written many of their computer programs and databases with dates represented by only two digit years (e.g., 95 versus 1995). However popular this method was, and is, customers' system and application programs may yield incorrect results when the millennium advances, and the date approaches "2000."

This means that customers whose businesses typically rely on applications which make forecasts, projections, comparisons, or arithmetic operations are encouraged to complete their preparations for Year 2000 date changes now.

The difficulty for many businesses comes in assessing what applications have date-sensitive programs; how many need to be altered; what it takes to actually make the required changes to source code and data files; and finally, running tests to ensure that all is operating properly. IBM's Year 2000 services, tools, and support will assist customers with this process.

"If customers are to be successful in tackling the Year 2000 issue, they need to focus on specific date-change methodologies, processes -- and overall project management," said John Phelps, Gartner Group. "Year 2000 projects need to be expedited by customers so that they can accurately determine their application programs' exposures and can begin corrective measures immediately."

"The problem is large; it's complex, and the IT industry has the skills and resources to take care of it -- providing we give ourselves the time to solve it," said Peter de Jager, Year 2000 consultant and speaker. "IBM is right to encourage and advise businesses, and vendors who support that business, to address this issue today."

Because of IBM's commitment to protect its customers' investments -- and its obvious interest in the long-term viability of the computer industry -- the company has spent considerable time researching, testing and analyzing the Year 2000 issue and possible solutions.

"With today's announcement, IBM is sharing what we have learned about the Year 2000 with our customers, and all computer - more users, to help them make date transitions as smooth as possible," said Carla Gude, director of System Software Structure, IBM. "No matter how old or new their software is, customers and industry vendors will never know how much work is ahead of them -- unless they focus now."

(end snip)

Also see the October, 1998 report from the House of Representitives:

http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/y2k_report/Isummary.htm

The February, 1999 report from the Senate:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HW8

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/report/

And the final report of Koskinen's group:

http://www.y2k.gov/docs/LASTREP3.htm



-- (history@of.Y2k), June 25, 2000.


ht tp://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/y2k_report/Isummary.htm

Thanks!!! the link above(and repeated here) has all the Y2k BS in one neat package, remarkable. Written at the height of the Millennium Contagion infection, it hits most if not all of the overblown and outright untrue facts concerning Y2k. The value in such a document is not in the content, but in reading the style. In showing how a problem of limited scope can be connected, hyped, and construed to sound like YOU Joe citizen have to stop and react to the noise of idiots. This is what talkingheads do, waste your time and spend your taxdollars justifying their existence with topics many times invented out of thin air. Most of Y2k was this. We know without a doubt, the "embedded" thingee was one such example among many in Y2k, extrapolated donkey donuts.

One is best served by spending time at websites like the mentioned, Whatis.com, or this one How Stuff Works. "Better to teach a man how to fish and feed him for a lifetime". Trips to any reputable manufacturer-supplier of computing goods and services yields much useful and MYTH dispelling info for people. One can use a computer or drive a car and not know how it all works. But it is wise to at least understand the basics. This knowledge alone would have made many of the Y2k Hucksters' claims "stretches" at best, which we KNEW they were then, and most NOW know.

There was a reason one never saw links to this information on Y2k websites, guess why? Had plenty of the ones "history of Y2k" provided just above, but zero to actual information that cleared the air.

Steve Heller likes to toss around his C++ resume, but have you ever heard him discuss C++ as it directly concerns Y2k issues? Wonder why?

-- Polly (polyy@tthisboard.now), June 25, 2000.


If we're just talking about TXU in this thread, I had a few debates with Mr. Heller on TB I regarding TXU. I worked for them in the IT department in late 1996 [had to check MY resume just now to see when], and their Y2k team was already fully developed. I wasn't on the Y2k team, but we met with them because they would test the systems on which WE were working to ensure remediation was complete.

They run all types of systems in their IT department, but the overwhelming majority are IMS database-based systems. I didn't see IMS on Steve's resume, so I don't know why he concerned himself with TXU's IT systems.

As far as TXU's plants, etc., they were all done in early 1999 with the exception of one plant that was scheduled for a shutdown in September. I waited patiently for news regarding that one, and when the press declared "ALL CLEAR", I knew we were home free on electricity. My utility director and I had been communicating since summer of 1998. They were all done in early 1999 as well, with everyone waiting strictly on TXU's ability to provide power.

I don't think it was imprudent to put some goods aside for Y2k, but I DO question why positive news was attacked as being "spin", simply because the poster had a better source of updates, or didn't post their resume.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ