To: NickSE who wrote (5406 ) 4/9/1999 6:52:00 PM From: flatsville Respond to of 9818
XO--I particularly like the part re: peeceeweenees (and you know who you are.)x13.dejanews.com [ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=461541080&CONTEXT=923697466.990576779&hitnum=22 Re: ATTN:customers of New Jersey Natural Gas Author: cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net> Date: 1999/04/01 Forum: comp.software.year-2000 Fatbrain.com {*} Find books on kiyoinc@ibm.xout.net comp.soft... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Brad, here's another clue for you. On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:08:29, james koch <alchem@en.com> wrote: > I've been fixing Y2K (Y20C and Y19C) bugs since I started programming > professionally in 1979. My question to the gloom and doom types is, if > Y2K is such a danger, why haven't we seen more computer problems by this > time? Every Y2K bug I've run into to date has been an easy fix. I have > far worse problems with the non Y2K crashes I have to deal with nearly > every day! I manage the laboratory and production control systems for a > chemical company and I found and fixed most of the Y2K bugs in a few > hours. And it only took that long since I was really thorough! I left > only one roll to history program partially fixed since it will be easier > to manipulate the data manually than to modify the program to handle all > possible permutations and combinations of run times after the first of > the year. Jim Koch (Cleveland) No problems, easy fix, few hours. Oh, wait, it's scientific applets in a lab. SHMUEL and I (and 100+ of our closest geek pals, several of whom have died) spent years building one application system out of structured macro assembly language and PL/I. The total cost of this system was over one billion dollars. The GUI has been rehosted twice, once from VT-100-a-like to 3270, more recently they built a PeeCee mouser interface. Interestingly, after the mouser UI went up, most users thought we had de-installed the mainframe. Manipulate the data manually? Manually? Hah? I'm guesstimating that the system has 200+ Terabytes of DASD. That's rotating, direct access, CKD, VSAM files in EMC RAID boxes. Oh, and the data is very dense with two digit years. But hey, some systems will be fixed, some are already fixed, some can be retired and some, some systems run multi-national corporations that are too big to fail. What happens when these systems fail. Stay tuned to c.s.y2k as peeceeweenee's who have never seen a mega system continue to argue that Y2K is not a problem. There are 50,000 IBM style mainframes running the civilized world, 400,000 AS/400s; some number, perhaps a few million, of Data General machines, DEC PDPs, VAXen, Alpha 5500 servers, Wangs; these things are still out there doing who knows what. Unless you have significant experience with these systems; please, please don't argue that there isn't a Y2K problem. You are embarrassing yourself. If this statement, "In 1995 an IBM 360 mod 40 with 2314 disks was running production for a corporation in Phoenix, Arizona." does not cause you to cringe, please do not claim that there isn't a Y2K problem. You have absolutely no idea of how the world works. cory hamasaki 274 Days, 6592 Hours. The Federal Government is 100% Y2K Compliant! April 1, 1999. Status report on kiyoinc.com I'll be in Hawai'i for a few days. I'm taking a used (very cheap) IBM Thinkpad with me, so I'll have 14.4 access to USENET from my mom's house. Will also stay on email. I'll resist hooking the Thinkpad up to the Airfone. Any Y2K's in Honolulu drop me an email if you want to rap some evening next week. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------