Y2K - What was all the fuss about?

[login to unmask email]

Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
The best comment I heard about Y2K was in yesterday morning's newspaper: after
all the hype about Y2K, and the apparent lack of any real problems resulting
from it (so far), January 1, 2000 will long be remembered as the "Yawn of the
New Millennium".

Bill Gallagher, DBA
Phoenix Home Life
Enfield, CT



Harvey Wachtel

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to BILL_GALLAGHER@PHL.COM)
The trouble with that statement is its implication that the entire Y2K
effort was much ado about nothing. Those of us who have been on the front
lines, especially those who had to deal with old application systems, know
that nothing could be farther from the truth. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I know if we hadn't been breaking our backs for the last year or
so, we would have indeed had the type of disaster at our shop that some had
been predicting.

I hope the pundits out there understand that if 2000-01-01 was a yawn, it's
because all of us in data processing did a helluva job (even if some of us
did cause the problem in the first place).



BILL_GALLAGHE
[login to unmask email] To: [login to unmask email]
Sent by: DB2 cc:
Data Base Subject: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
Discussion
List
<[login to unmask email]
OM>


2000-01-02
09:40
Please
respond to
DB2 Data Base
Discussion
List





The best comment I heard about Y2K was in yesterday morning's newspaper:
after
all the hype about Y2K, and the apparent lack of any real problems
resulting
from it (so far), January 1, 2000 will long be remembered as the "Yawn of
the
New Millennium".

Bill Gallagher, DBA
Phoenix Home Life
Enfield, CT








Jim Tonchick

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Harvey Wachtel)
In a message dated 01/02/2000 4:46:13 PM Central Standard Time,
[login to unmask email] writes:
<< The trouble with that statement is its implication that the entire Y2K
effort was much ado about nothing. Those of us who have been on the front
lines, especially those who had to deal with old application systems, know
that nothing could be farther from the truth. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I know if we hadn't been breaking our backs for the last year or
so, we would have indeed had the type of disaster at our shop that some had
been predicting.
>>

I can't agree more... If it hadn't been for Y2k to put the "fear" in
management, software budgets would never had been opened up to pay for the
release upgrades they refused to pay for over the last decade. There would
still be shops out there running CICS R2.1.2, DB2 2.3, IMS 3.1 and MVS 4.3.
Even as late as the IMS Tech Conference in August, IBM showed a chart with
IMS 1.3 customers!

Jim Tonchick



Max Scarpa

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Jim Tonchick)
Even in Italy newspapers say that Y2K bug was only a big business for someone.

But without Y2K fear our management would have left our systems at the stone
age, no Y2K

budget, no system upgrade, 'It costs too much' would be the main phrase....But
what would be the
costs for a real bug ? No one knows.....How many managers would be fired if Y2K
was not

considered ?

And all people speaking (and writing) about Y2K NOW had to earn his pay.....like
Bill Gates, a

'guru' as defined in one of the most important newspaper in Italy.

Don't worry about gossip of some newspapers, be happy that all was ok.....until
now.

Max Scarpa
System Admin
Cesve SpA

Standards disclaimer apply



learning DB

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Max Scarpa)
Typical management statement - nothing went wrong, so
it was a scam; if something had gone wrong, it would
be my fault.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com



Canvas Botha

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to learning DB)
Yes the fuss about Y2K. Although I agree with all that has been said, it was the actual last month that anoyed me. We have tested and made changes for the past 18 month to ensure that the Y2K project would be a success. Why then freeze all changes to the development environment? Why this massive standby effort after we have proved to management about 10 times that the project will work? I do think that there was some over reaction. Crying "WOLF" works, like in this case.

However I am glad that it went well and boring. It means that we have done our jobs!!!!!

Canvas

-----Original Message-----
From: [login to unmask email] [SMTP:[login to unmask email]
Sent: 02 January 2000 16:40
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?

The best comment I heard about Y2K was in yesterday morning's newspaper: after
all the hype about Y2K, and the apparent lack of any real problems resulting
from it (so far), January 1, 2000 will long be remembered as the "Yawn of the
New Millennium".

Bill Gallagher, DBA
Phoenix Home Life
Enfield, CT






Hilton Tina

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Canvas Botha)
Well, I'm sorry to admit this, but we are still running CICS 2.1.2 and MVS
4.3. We might upgrade CICS to V4 this year, but OS/390 was removed from the
budget. We're currently on DB2 V3, although I've been ready to upgrade to
V4 for the past year. I wasn't allowed to do that upgrade because of the
Y2K work. So, some budgets didn't get opened up and we're still forced to
run with antiquated software.

Tina Hilton

-----Original Message-----
From: [login to unmask email] [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 9:00 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?


In a message dated 01/02/2000 4:46:13 PM Central Standard Time,
[login to unmask email] writes:
<< The trouble with that statement is its implication that the entire Y2K
effort was much ado about nothing. Those of us who have been on the front
lines, especially those who had to deal with old application systems, know
that nothing could be farther from the truth. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I know if we hadn't been breaking our backs for the last year or
so, we would have indeed had the type of disaster at our shop that some had
been predicting.
>>

I can't agree more... If it hadn't been for Y2k to put the "fear" in
management, software budgets would never had been opened up to pay for the
release upgrades they refused to pay for over the last decade. There would
still be shops out there running CICS R2.1.2, DB2 2.3, IMS 3.1 and MVS 4.3.
Even as late as the IMS Tech Conference in August, IBM showed a chart with
IMS 1.3 customers!

Jim Tonchick








Harvey Wachtel

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Hilton Tina)
That sums it up. Talk about no-win situations!

All we can do is keep doing our jobs. Let's hope our luck (or maybe I
should say "skill") continues to hold up.



learning DB
<thelist_us@Y To: [login to unmask email]
AHOO.COM> cc:
Sent by: DB2 Subject: Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
Data Base
Discussion
List
<[login to unmask email]
OM>


2000-01-03
02:26
Please
respond to
DB2 Data Base
Discussion
List





Typical management statement - nothing went wrong, so
it was a scam; if something had gone wrong, it would
be my fault.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com








Harvey Wachtel

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Harvey Wachtel)
I've found, as many others have, from butter experience that it's best not
to make more than one major change at a time, if only because it makes it
ten times harder to figure out the cause of glitches that appear. The
calendar rollover is a major change imposed from outside, so it makes sense
to me not to do anything else at the same time.

By the way, I hate to admit it, but our last-minute testing did uncover two
mistakes we had somehow overlooked.






Canvas Botha
<[login to unmask email] To: [login to unmask email]
.CO.ZA> cc:
Sent by: DB2 Subject: Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
Data Base
Discussion
List
<[login to unmask email]
OM>


2000-01-03
04:33
Please
respond to
DB2 Data Base
Discussion
List





Yes the fuss about Y2K. Although I agree with all that has been said, it
was the actual last month that anoyed me. We have tested and made changes
for the past 18 month to ensure that the Y2K project would be a success.
Why then freeze all changes to the development environment? Why this
massive standby effort after we have proved to management about 10 times
that the project will work? I do think that there was some over reaction.
Crying "WOLF" works, like in this case.

However I am glad that it went well and boring. It means that we have done
our jobs!!!!!

Canvas

-----Original Message-----
From: [login to unmask email] [SMTP:[login to unmask email]
Sent: 02 January 2000 16:40
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?

The best comment I heard about Y2K was in yesterday morning's newspaper:
after
all the hype about Y2K, and the apparent lack of any real problems
resulting
from it (so far), January 1, 2000 will long be remembered as the "Yawn of
the
New Millennium".

Bill Gallagher, DBA
Phoenix Home Life
Enfield, CT








http://www.ryci.com/db2-l. The owners of the list can be reached at
[login to unmask email]



Craig Theisen

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Harvey Wachtel)
Well said, the software release and application comments are ditto for
our shop. But lets wait a few months before we sigh too deep thinking it is
all over or yield to any complaints from management about Y2K being a bunch
of expensive hype. We passed a big milestone, but most of those millions
of lines of legacy code are in daily, monthly, quarterly etc batch cycles
which have not executed yet. The reality of the Y2K risk may still be
felt by enough companies that those that did a prudent job preparing for it
will not be sorry.

Craig T.

-----Original Message-----
From: [login to unmask email] [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 8:00 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?


In a message dated 01/02/2000 4:46:13 PM Central Standard Time,
[login to unmask email] writes:
<< The trouble with that statement is its implication that the entire Y2K
effort was much ado about nothing. Those of us who have been on the front
lines, especially those who had to deal with old application systems, know
that nothing could be farther from the truth. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I know if we hadn't been breaking our backs for the last year or
so, we would have indeed had the type of disaster at our shop that some had
been predicting.
>>

I can't agree more... If it hadn't been for Y2k to put the "fear" in
management, software budgets would never had been opened up to pay for the
release upgrades they refused to pay for over the last decade. There would
still be shops out there running CICS R2.1.2, DB2 2.3, IMS 3.1 and MVS 4.3.
Even as late as the IMS Tech Conference in August, IBM showed a chart with
IMS 1.3 customers!

Jim Tonchick








Harvey Wachtel

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Craig Theisen)
I (and many other observers) have been predicting that there will be minor
glitches for months to come.

One thing that I think shouldn't be overlooked by anyone who's been running
a source remediation program that used any kind of windowing: Before
putting the project to bed, an exit report should be prepared indicating
dates for future action. For fixed windows, this would be a few years
before the end of the window. For floating windows, this would be a few
years before the end of the window might wrap around to encompass old data
(which would have to be removed from databases in time). Otherwise, we'll
be having Y2K "echo" glitches every ten years. And of course we don't want
to hear "oh, this code won't be around in 2030 (or whatever)." We've been
there already.



"Theisen,
Craig" To: [login to unmask email]
<[login to unmask email] cc:
EMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
Sent by: DB2
Data Base
Discussion
List
<[login to unmask email]
M>


2000-01-03
09:59
Please respond
to DB2 Data
Base
Discussion
List





Well said, the software release and application comments are ditto
for
our shop. But lets wait a few months before we sigh too deep thinking it
is
all over or yield to any complaints from management about Y2K being a bunch
of expensive hype. We passed a big milestone, but most of those millions
of lines of legacy code are in daily, monthly, quarterly etc batch cycles
which have not executed yet. The reality of the Y2K risk may still be
felt by enough companies that those that did a prudent job preparing for it
will not be sorry.

Craig T.

-----Original Message-----
From: [login to unmask email] [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 8:00 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?


In a message dated 01/02/2000 4:46:13 PM Central Standard Time,
[login to unmask email] writes:
<< The trouble with that statement is its implication that the entire Y2K
effort was much ado about nothing. Those of us who have been on the front
lines, especially those who had to deal with old application systems, know
that nothing could be farther from the truth. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I know if we hadn't been breaking our backs for the last year or
so, we would have indeed had the type of disaster at our shop that some
had
been predicting.
>>

I can't agree more... If it hadn't been for Y2k to put the "fear" in
management, software budgets would never had been opened up to pay for the
release upgrades they refused to pay for over the last decade. There would
still be shops out there running CICS R2.1.2, DB2 2.3, IMS 3.1 and MVS 4.3.
Even as late as the IMS Tech Conference in August, IBM showed a chart with
IMS 1.3 customers!

Jim Tonchick



the










Lyle Kelly-LH-1

Re: Y2K - What was all the fuss about?
(in response to Harvey Wachtel)
Harvey said "I hope the pundits out there understand that if 2000-01-01 was a
yawn, it's
because all of us in data processing did a helluva job (even if some of us
did cause the problem in the first place)."

Exactly.