🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 03:32:14 +0000, Nilanjan Bhowmik <nilu@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> 
>> We ought to have some sort of semi-coherent response to the Y2K issue.
>> Pointy-haired types are all worried about Y2K; if Linux advocates can
>> say:
>>   "Here, look at <http://www.linux.org/y2k.html>.  It shows what Y2K
>>    issues have been raised and dealt with..."
>> this defuses a whole lot of problems.
>> 
>> I have what links I've been able to find listed at
>> <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>.  It's in the last subpage of
>> the document...
>> 
>This small thing can make a lot of difference - is caldera working on it
>to get certification ?

And who do you think is the "official certifier"?

There is no obvious party that is actually legally responsible for
certifying that any particular software is "Year 2000 Compliant."

The people concerned with "certification" are Dilbertian Pointy-Haired
Managers.  They also often think that being a MCE is of some value, and that
it would actually be beneficial to outsource software development to
third-world nations.

See: <http://www.sap.com/y2000/index.htm> for a sample of what is the
typical sort of documentation of "Year 2000 Compliance."  Note that SAP AG
is selling a *pile* of software on the virtue of R/3 being a solution to the
Y2K problem.  I use the software and am reasonably confident of its
compliance; the primary issue is of systematic use of date fields that
correctly handle dates.

The point is that you can claim Y2K "compliance" so long as there is no one
able to gainsay the claim.  This is obviously safest if you have:
a) Some reasonable set of tests to verify compliance, and
b) Documentation of the tests and how they were performed.

-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. 	
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbrowne@hex.net - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."