Jay,
Thanks for the DoD y2k site. I've posted it on AOL, some some people are already digsting the information. Great website! Somebody discovered that VIAS is already a vendor. Zitl and MD are not mentioned, but why should they be at this point?
What's interesting is that the DoD is still offering contracts to solve the problem, and yo can download one for persual and submission. Doesn't sound like the problem is solved.
This is an improtant point for everybody to keep in mind: Schick says that old contracts may be torn up as newer and more automated code conversion tools become available. An even more improtant thing to keep in mind is that Schicks estimates of the y2k problem ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMTION OF 100% MANUAL DECODING. You can bet that alot of poeple who started down the manual road will reconsider when MD has the rollout on 1/6/96 (or thereabouts, <g>).
Q3,
Thanks for the tutorial on ADA. You can write in ADA as well? I like the term "franktasy", and you are correct that I am prone to flights of the same. So, is it a "franktasy" that ADA is not y2k compliant? I mean, there are zillions of lines of ADA. NOw, I figure that the DoD may not have been bothered by the expense of providing extra memory storage to store all four fields in the century code. They after all could dip their hands into the taxpayers pocket. If they can pay $200 for a nail, why not shell out thousands to buy some extra memory storage, eh? Then again, despite huge financial resources, maybe they used that extra memory storge to keep mounds of other useless information. I await your insights.
Carl,
Being a Red Wings fan, I cringe a little when I hear about Toronto and Rocket Roger. But I always did like John Brophy (former coach for Maple Leafs).
Regarding Canada IBM. I always thought that COBOL was universal, but now we find out that CanIBM is not working with Peritus in Canada but looking for a Canadian partner. I guess we can slice off 2billion dollars from the market size for Peritus right way, can't we? I also thought we had a trade agreement with Canada. I don't see why Peritus software can't cross the Canadian border. After all, it is free! But maybe that's the problem, because it is free, it would put Canadian programmers out of work.
What astonishes me is that IBM is still working on a y2k angle this late in the game, when they had promised everybody that all their stuff would be y2k compliant by the fall of 1996. IBM still has seven days to make good on this promise, but the fact that they are thinking about partnering with this Canadian firm tells me they are a little behind schedule.
Peter Guy,
Again, I advise that you go further back in the notestream to asnwer some of yoru own questions.
Stan,
I like the horse racing analogy ("betting on the right horse"). I know you enjoy gambling. But if I could just embellish the analogy a little. Why do you look at this as a SINGLE horse race? I look at it as a whole racing season, multiple races. I have been betting on the same horse and rider in multiple races. I have bet to win, place and show and have won much more often than I have lost. If Zitl's stocks price tanks on a given day and I lose the bet, I still have won many more races than I have lost.
BUt unlike horseracing, the stock market is a place where you can change your bet after the gate is open. That's where all gambling anaolgies to the stock market end. I am prepared to put down good money on Consyngen or Peritus if evidence emerges that they are 4 lengths ahead in the last quarter mile. So far, I don't see that.
DopcStone. |
