Embedded software Y2k ..Swirbul, GM, utilities again...
'In article <6jkbk4$qfu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
fedinfo@halifax.com wrote:
>
>
> Recent research indicates that the cost of fixing the manufacturing problems
>at the plant-level may be at least half of what a company spends to fix
>overall data center issues. Machines on the factory floor are very sensitive
>to incorrect dates - more so than was expected. For example, a modern
>pharmaceutical plant maintains 83 computer systems with three million lines of
>code. Within that code are 120,000 date references with potential Y2K
>problems. In addition, the plant runs 138 automated production systems with
>400 date references plus 200 machines with embedded software. . . .
> The problem on the factory floor began 20 years ago when manufacturing found
>that computers could streamline their operations, making a company more
>efficient and thus more profitable. In those early days, off-the-shelf
>software was practically non-existent so each plant developed programs that
>suited individual manufacturing specifications. The result was that custom
>software ruled the factory floor. During this time period, about half of the
>software written for manufacturing was written in Cobol. The remaining
>software was written in a variety of computing languages that might as well be
>gibberish. What this means is that although there are tools currently to hunt
>for zero-zero (00) date errors in Cobol and a few otherlanguages, few exist
>for the vast number of so-called embedded systems. Embedded systems are chips
>and programs (not readily accessible or even visible) which are integral parts
>of control and production equipment. Many must be decoded and fixed
>individually. Repairing devices and software programs is tricky since it is a
>'given' in the industry that new program errors will be introduced in seven
>percent of routine repairs. Compounding the problem is that many of these
>programs can't be fixed because they are inscribed on silicon chips. In those
>cases, manufacturers are forced to scrap any date driven plant equipment. The
>only good news is that these moves force manufacturers to purchase
>leading-edge products that will improve their efficiency and overall
>competitiveness.
> To date, the majority of U.S. manufacturers haven't even completed a
>plantwide assessment to learn the depth of the Y2K problem. With the economy
>booming, manufacturing plants are running three shifts, seven days a week.
>Companies find it difficult to replicate Year 2000 conditions before they
>happen. Because the factories can't afford to close down, the solution
>involves testing during off-peak hours, over planned shutdown periods or
>buying expensive back-up equipment.
>
> General Motors serves as a good example of how traumatic the situation is.
>With over two billion lines of code, GM is the world leader in the number of
>computerized systems. As part of its Y2K program, the company is retiring
>1,700 obsolete computer systems. Estimates to eradicate the millennium bug at
>GM run between $400 and $550 million. The severity of the problem at the
>giant auto manufacturer was recently brought to light when the company ran a
>test with some of its robotic devices. Y2K problems caused the robots to
>freeze - an act that could shut down the entire assembly line.
Yup, Y2K problems are out there. And the are big.
>Maybe some day Fred will wake up to the enormity of the logistical problems.
I work with large logistical problems all the time. Your point is?
>Maybe some day Fred will wake up to the the fact that electrical generation is
>not dependent 'soley' upon the compliance of an individual utility, of which
>NONE are yet compliant.
You know Paul, the only difference between you and I is our differing beliefs on
whether the problem can be solved in time. Except for a possible exception or
few, I know no utilities are compliant, yet. I have posted that. I know how
a relatively small disturbance in generation can bring down large partrs of
the grid. I have posted on that also. I also am seeing the remediation plans,
the failure rates, and the contingency plans.
>Maybe some day Fred will look at the proposed budgets
>and see that no matter what utilities are planning to do they have not
>budgeted the half of what they need.
Just to twist your words around, does this mean you think that the US is
only off by a factor of two for its over all Y2K budget? That isn't to
bad considering where everone is in testing right now.
>Maybe some day Fred will pull his head out of the sand.
I am more of your eyes and hears than you realize. I have the facts to back
up the problems you can only speculate exist in the electric industry. But,
again, I think they can be solved (by most utilities, anyway. Some are
sure to make mistakes).
Back to solving Y2K problems and answering legitimate Y2K questions.
>Nahhhh.
>
>Paul Milne
>http://marketspace.altavista.digital.com/WebPort.asp?ArticleId=375
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
___
Subject:
Re: The Continuing Education Of Fred Swirbul Chapter 1
Date:
Mon, 18 May 1998 17:45:46 GMT
From:
Fred Swirbul <fswirbul@ix.netcom.com>
Organization:
ICGNetcom
Newsgroups:
comp.software.year-2000
References:
1 |
