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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (1703)	5/6/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: Paul van Wijk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Sire, Let's try to put it this way; Let's describe the Y2k-problem as a desert. This thread is about discussing this desert. What your are doing is posting links about how every specific grain of sand is doing. Try to see it this way; The Y2k is about ONE big worldwide fixed-date 300-600 billion-dollar project, not centraly coordinated, still heavily underestimated and at this moment way behind schedule. Everyone who works in the IT-business knows that less than 25% of all IT-projects is finished within time and budget. The chances this project will be finished in time is zero. No matter how many of the hundreds of thousands companys, products or whatever are Y2k compliant. So please no more (over and over) postings about every product or company that is Y2k-compliant. Let's focus on the big picture. Again wishing you to have a nice day (I mean it). Paul

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (1703)	5/6/1998 5:55:00 PM
From: Caroline	Respond to of 9818

If you "got it," your reply would not have been defensive. How many of us have tried to shove you in the right direction? Cheryl suggested you take the y2k-compliant posts to another thread. The fact that you ignored her request means you don't get it.

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (1703)	5/7/1998 9:15:00 AM
From: Steve Woas	Respond to of 9818

It is one thing to think that you have "fixed" the problem....It is another thing to properly test. I extracted the following from a recent usenet posting: "> > : Well, my group got bit by a Y2k fix to one of our monthly jobs by the > > : "dedicated" Y2k remediation group. > > > Sounds like your shop is out of control. What are untested Y2K fixes doing > in production code? That's exactly my point. At least this one Y2K fix was slammed into production without proper testing. And without the team that is responsible for the code normally (the group I'm in) being fully aware of what the Y2k team was doing. I'm willing to consider that this was an aberration and not business as usual, but I'm going to be watching more carefully when I hear that "they're putting in more Y2k fixes for our stuff" next time. Note that neither I nor the guy who got the call manage this group (I'm unofficial 2nd in command) so neither of us really had any leverage ahead of time to prevent this."