Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Year 2000 (Y2K) Embedded Systems & Infrastructure Problem -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (250)	3/20/1998 2:08:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 618

The panel's level of confidence in the chemicals, oil and pharmaceutical sector declined. TOP TEN STORIES UK battling hard to beat millennium bug Survey paints more positive picture from most sectors The IT gurus who contribute to Computing's Year 2000 Confidence Index are increasingly upbeat about UK plc's chances of making it through the millennium, writes Peter Walker. The Index's second set of monthly results reveal a modest increase in confidence levels across almost all industry sectors. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 indicates no confidence, our panel boosted the average score for all sectors from 5.4 to 5.7. The panel's level of confidence in the chemicals, oil and pharmaceutical sector declined. This is the only sector judged to have fallen behind with its preparations. Banking once again scored the highest confidence rating while the public sector beyond central government once again scored lowest. The Institute of Grocery Distribution's Initiative 2000 was singled out by the panel as a significant boost to the Index. One panel member concluded: `This is the first sector initiative where large companies are funding a programme to ensure smaller companies in the grocery supply chain will be compliant. I would expect other sectors to follow suit.' webserv.vnunet.com

To: John Mansfield who wrote (250)	3/21/1998 1:45:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 618

'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