'Subject: Byte Magazine, July 1998 - Year 2000 Issue
Date:
Sat, 18 Jul 1998 15:49:39 -0400
From:
rcowles@waterw.com (Rick Cowles)
Organization:
What's that?
Newsgroups:
comp.software.year-2000
I picked up a copy of Byte magazine's July issue yesterday evening because
of the Y2k cover story. If you haven't picked it up at your newstand yet,
by all means hike thee over and get it. The article is good.
I was particularly struck by one paragraph, because it applies (on several
levels) to me personally:
<fair use quoting>
" There are those who say Y2K is just a lot of hype. The argument seems to
be based on the fact that consultants and software vendors are making money
from Y2K; ergo, it's a hoax. Hey, drug companies make money from heart
medication: Maybe heart disease is a hoax, too. Now is not the time to
complain that the lifeboat builders are making too much money. You'll have
plenty of time to hoot and laugh on January 2, 2000, assuming you still
have a company left. Until then, your best bet is to take what lifeboats
are available and start rowing."
</fair use quoting>
(I may not have captured the entire context of the above paragraph, simply
because it was in the middle of a larger discussion of the issue, and the
author was making an analogy between a company to a ship. Buy a copy if
you need the full story.)
I said previously that the above paragraph applied personally to me on a
lot of levels. I'm a consultant hawking Y2k services. I've written a book
on the subject. I speak on the topic (and get paid for it). Yes,
indeedee, I'm making a few dollars in dealing with the problem.
Some folks in csy2k seem to have the notion that others of us in the n.g.
who are actually offering Y2k services or information are right up there
with the best of the snake oil salesmen. That we have the perfect issue to
scream 'fire', so that the big company corporate exec's (who really don't
know shit from shinola about the technical aspects of the issue) will, in a
fit of corporate mob hysteria, cough up the big bucks for a bottle of Y2k
elixir. That we're a bunch of self serving jerks who ratchet up the tone
of the discussion for our self serving purposes. That the information and
details we provide are suspect because we're not business virgins and our
intentions must most assuredly not be pure.
I'd submit to you that what you've got is a few people who were out on the
leading edge of the issue a few years back, educated themselves on the
topic, started offering assistance, and actually found a market for that
assistance. The analysis of the issue by folks such as Peter DeJager or
Ed Yourdon or Cory Hamasaki, and their ability to influence others, is a
direct result of a lot of hard work, sleepless nights, and years of 8 to 5
career work prior to the Y2k issue galvanizing the sum of that career work.
You can bet your last embedded chip that before Peter started making a
nickel on Y2k, that he gave away thousands of hours of his own freebie time
AFTER finishing the day job.
Let me close with one thought. 10 years ago, companies like
Smith-Klien-Beecham started quietly raising the corporate hysteria level
about drugs and alcohol use in the workplace. Surprise, surprise - they
had a vested interest in the issue - employee drug and alcohol screening (a
multi-billion dollar industry). But are we all safer for knowing that our
airplane pilots, nuclear industry workers, and public safety officials
(police, EMS, etc.) must be somewhat free of substance abuse? You bet.
But again, these testing companies have made billions in filling a
necessary market.
Don't discount the message simply because the messenger figured out how to
make a buck on a bad situation. It's called 'free enterprise'.
--
Rick Cowles (Public PGP key on request)
Now Shipping From AMAZON.COM: "Electric Utilities and Y2k" - The Book
euy2k.com |
