Re: Heroes ???
As one of the greybeards who are partly responsible for the Y2K problem I would like to say that we were only guilty of not planning for the logevity of software. I remember only too well how we worked out that we could save one bit in 1970 by making the range of years 32 from 1970. At the time we were working on mainframes with 32K bytes! Management even told us we could make this assumption as the software would not still be in use in 20 years time. But the software was still in use in 1998! Hence a Y2K bug. How many of you have been caught out by the ever growing telephone numbers? That is only yhte same bug but in a different disguise. So, anybody who says they have never written software that is Y2K compliant had better tell us how they write "unlimited" software. Even the engines are guilty of not foreseeing the future. Hence funny limits like 2Gig for chunk sizes etc. regards Malcolm At 05:40 PM 1/20/00 +0000, you wrote: >Ahhh... There, but for the grace of advancing technology... > >david.mcallister@soi.co.uk wrote: > >> I don't know how old you are, but Y2K wasn't my fault. >> >> Hard-working people, ok, but heroes, no way !!! >> Pls, don't forget that Y2K problem was our fault....big time. >> Sorry folks. >> --Diego Mezzera > > >
Malcolm Weallans wrote: > > As one of the greybeards who are partly responsible for the Y2K problem I > would like to say that we were only guilty of not planning for the logevity > of software. I remember only too well how we worked out that we could save > one bit in 1970 by making the range of years 32 from 1970. At the time we > were working on mainframes with 32K bytes! Management even told us we > could make this assumption as the software would not still be in use in 20 > years time. But the software was still in use in 1998! Hence a Y2K bug. > Note: 1. Software is still around from "a long" time ago . . . says something for the software design that still functional, huh? 2. They really did have Pointy-Haired Bosses back then. -- John Carlson Informix DBA WHSmith USA #include std_disclaimer.h /* These are my opinions, not my company's opinion */
Right-on John! Everyone who wants to blame us older programmers and the pioneers who came before us for the Y2K problems (not to mention the problem with UNIX dates in 30 years or so). Please remember we and they were working with slow tiny machines with little disk storage and less memory. I started programming on an IBM 1130 with 16KB of main memory and a massive 30MB disk pack drive and we had two, count 'em two, disk packs we could interchange! Every bit was precious. Art S. Kagel "Carlson@WHSmith" wrote: > > Malcolm Weallans wrote: > > > > As one of the greybeards who are partly responsible for the Y2K problem I > > would like to say that we were only guilty of not planning for the logevity > > of software. I remember only too well how we worked out that we could save > > one bit in 1970 by making the range of years 32 from 1970. At the time we > > were working on mainframes with 32K bytes! Management even told us we > > could make this assumption as the software would not still be in use in 20 > > years time. But the software was still in use in 1998! Hence a Y2K bug. > > > > Note: > 1. Software is still around from "a long" time ago . . . says something > for the software design that still functional, huh? > 2. They really did have Pointy-Haired Bosses back then. > > -- > John Carlson > Informix DBA > WHSmith USA > > #include std_disclaimer.h /* These are my opinions, not my company's > opinion */