SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : 2000: Y2K Civilized Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: flatsville who wrote (335)8/18/1999 10:45:00 PM
From: flatsville  Respond to of 662
 
news.com

Fair Use/yaddah, yaddan, yaddah

Y2K plans may be short-sighted, report says

By Erich Luening
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 17, 1999, 12:20 p.m. PT

>>>The Year 2000 bug is expected to cause computer failures throughout 2000 and possibly into the following year, leaving most companies with short-sighted contingency plans unprepared, according to a report released today.

The Gartner Group study found that more than 90 percent of global industries in their final stages of planning have incorrectly focused their efforts in the first quarter of 2000--possibly making them vulnerable to other computer catastrophes later on in the year.

"Many year 2000 contingency and disaster recovery plans cover only a narrow period around January 1, 2000. However, we believe the majority of failures will not occur during this time," said Lou Marcoccio, an analyst at Gartner and author of the study.

"Many of these should begin now or in the fourth quarter of this year and follow through a good portion of 2000. [Companies] are not planning for the broader period."

As a result of their shortsightedness, organizations that limit their contingency-planning efforts may miss other issues that warrant contingency and continuity efforts, according to Marcoccio.

"Their plans, aimed at reducing risk, will actually create a false sense of security that will be rudely tested by failures occurring in 1999 and beyond January 2000," he stated.

Marcoccio detailed the Gartner Group's latest installment of its Year 2000 World Assessment today. With just four months to go before the new year, the survey marks the final published report of the research firm's series on the Y2K issue.

Marcoccio said many computer failures related to the Y2K bug would occur sporadically, over the course of the year, rather than all at once. Because of this, the overall effect of the bug on industry and business should be lessened, he added.

Most system failures are expected to happen in earnest during the fourth quarter of this year through the third quarter of 2000, the report found. Yet Marcoccio still expects sporadic problems from the third quarter of this year even through the first quarter of 2001, in some cases...<<<



To: flatsville who wrote (335)8/19/1999 12:06:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston  Respond to of 662
 
LOL - Something got lost in the translation.
Could you write this in English please:-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Internet really comes down to 13 machines, called “root servers.” These are the major “data traffic cops” for the entire Internet. If those puppies blow, the entire global network grinds to halt ... [Interesting that MSNBC says this. Hmmm]

NSI warned that if proper precautions aren't taken, “a failure of or interruption to normal business” would occur. NSI's visibility, owing to its fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, makes it accountable. Not so with the other 11 root servers; those are run by volunteers, computer grad students at universities and other non-governmental organizations around the world ...

We do not know whether such domain name server operators have hardware, software or firmware that is Year 2000 compliant.”

On Tuesday, CIX's Dooley sought to belay such hyperbole, saying that the “root servers are Y2K-ready,
according to their operators.” However, no one has independently verified the statements of the root server
operators ... msnbc.com

Cheryl“

P.S. On second thought, you don't have to translate. If anyone's interested they could just click on that link.

Sounds like Swedish“, Dutch“, German“ ... whatever“



To: flatsville who wrote (335)8/19/1999 9:08:00 AM
From: flatsville  Respond to of 662
 
Cheryl--The msnbc article copied and reads fine on my computer and my version of SI (still using old.) I don't understand what the problem is exactly.