'Y2K compliance means that the entire infrastructure has been tested as a system.
Subject:
Re: Y2K no problem for cars
Date:
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:13:24 -0500
From:
Norm Dang <See@inside.please>
Organization:
Ontario Hydro Shared Services
Newsgroups:
comp.software.year-2000, rec.autos.makers.saturn
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8
Eric Boehm wrote:
> ..Of course, if I were a smart little programmer, I'd use a serial numbering
> system on my software versions rather than a date code and avoid the problem
> all together. Another example of the irrelevance of y2k in automobiles...
Eric,
I think you missed the point. A system does not have to be "date" or
"year" aware or even have a clock to have a Y2K problem. Any problem
caused by dates is generically described as a "Y2K" problem.
Y2K compliance means that the entire infrastructure has been tested as a
system. This includes everything from the microprocessor development
system used to create the Saturn code, right down to the dealership
servicing tools.
In my example, a dealership service tool incorrectly overwrites part of
another data table by two bytes because it tries to write a 4 digit year
instead of a two digit year. The code will execute normally until it
tries to use those two bytes. This problem could trigger years after
Y2K. The computer itself does not even have to have a clock function.
Since we were not the "smart little programmers" that created the
system, we are in no position to speculate one way or the other as to
whether there will be a problem or not. The only people that know for
sure are those "smart little programmers" who wrote the code.
Saturn has already issued a statement that their system is Y2K
compliant. Just because the big 3 have not issued a statement yet does
not mean anything. I think you will find that they have people dedicated
to Y2K checking everything you could imagine and more.
Imagine if you had a business that depended on working vehicles, such as
Fed-Ex. Would you continue to purchase from a supplier that could not
provide Y2K compliance, regardless of whether you thought there was a
problem or not?
I have already seen one example of a system that "sucessfully" passed
initial Y2K testing. A code review for another problem later showed a
previously unknown year dependency in a downstream embedded PLC that was
not triggered in testing.
Norm
--
To email me remove "1a" and "a1"
norm.dang1a@a1hydro.on.ca |
