🚀 go-pugleaf

We have used a mixture of techniques. Of course this is a limited solution
but it is normally applied to "legacy" systems that will ultimately be
upgraded. I'm personally less concerned about this than the fact that I
doubt we have really gotten through to the sloppy programmers that have
continued to perpetuate this problem and continue even to-day to sell
systems that are not  capable of dealing with a century rollover.

IMHO, any programmer in the past  5 years (and I think I'm being
generousbecause I could easily argue 10 years) who implemented a system that
didn't deal properly with the century turnover was professionally
incompetent. If CIPS has any ISP's who fall in this category (and I would
hope we don't) then I would strongly question their right to hold the
designation.

I know this may sound harsh but I am embarassed that our industry has
sold/bought the big lie that companies like MicroSoft are not legally and
financially liable for fixing the poorly engineered systems they delivered
in the past 5 years.  Can you imagine what would happen if GM or Ford
designed an automobile with a defect that failed 100% of the time at (say)
5000K beyond their warranty.  We all know they would be forced to recall and
repair that defect. What makes software any different than an automobile?

I think I have made this speech in this forum before. I and I assume many of
you should be lining up to appear as expert witnesses in the lawsuits that
arise to refute this nonsensical idea that companies are not liable for the
systems they delivered in the 90's (if not in the 80's).

Is this article's statement true for most Canadian Y2K remediation
>efforts?
>
>Sort of like the national debt, shove it under the rug and let the next
>generation worry about it.
>
>/jc
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:13:07 -0800
>From: "Mark Gibbs" <mgibbs@gibbs.com>
>Reply-To: ibg-list@silcom.com
>To: "IBG" <ibg-list@silcom.com>
>
>MOST Y2K FIXES WILL ONLY LAST A GENERATION
>
>The fix used to patch 80% of the worlds' computers to avert a Y2K crisis
>is
>actually only a short-term remedy called "windowing."  Rather than using
>a
>permanent fix called "expansion," which requires transforming all
>two-digit
>year-dates found in software into four-digit year-dates, the "windowing"
>patch is a trick that forces software to "guess" whether dates fall in
>the
>1900s or the 2000s;  typically, lower numbers (perhaps up to 30) will
>belong
>to the new century, whereas higher numbers (such as 87) will belong to
>the
>old century.  Although many experts say this is the only practical way
>to
>solve the problem, others are warning that the "windowing" approach is
>just
>pushing the problem under the rug for awhile.  Keith Rhodes of the
>General
>Accounting Office says, "It's like the Fram oil filter guy:  You can pay
>me
>now or you can pay me later.  It's not solving your problem.  It's
>delaying
>the inevitable."
>
>(San Jose Mercury News 15 Mar 99)
>
>Humm. So, do you care what happens after you've left the company -- oh,
>let's say you're in your thirties -- some 60 or 70 years
>later?
>
>Gibbs, over ...
>
>=================================================
>Mark Gibbs    Gibbs & Co.    http://www.gibbs.com
>Tel: 805-643-4999               Fax: 805-641-3311
>=================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>========================================
>The Intranet Business Group is sponsored
>by  Network  World's  IntraNet  Magazine
>Admin and queries:   ibg-admin@gibbs.com
>========================================Content-Type:
application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"

>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
>Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\INCOMING\smime1.p7s
>