Re: Y2K

[dennis_m_smith1@juno.com (Dennis M Smith)]

Thank you Glenn.  I finally heard someone on all these lists, I've been
on, actually come up with the facts.  I been working in Computers since
1978 as a Operator and programmer and went through the same things.  The
only time we bought more disk space was so the client could kept more
information online not to increase the date fields. 

On 13 Dec 98  07:09:50 i-y2k-mod@phil.gn.apc.org writes:
>The message below was sent to Roberto Verzola privately, so we've
>omitted the sender's email address. He subsequently agreed however
>to include his name:
>
>Mr. Verzola,
>
>Your note on the evils of "gain maximization" was forwarded to me.  I 
>am
>not interested in joining a large listserve, so I'll reply directly 
>to
>you.
>
>I have been in the computer industry since the 50s and managed major
>software development.  From my perspective your note seems to be an
>exercise of ideology over reality.
>
>First, few of the later-day Y2K experts understand that the problem
>results from a "birth defect" in the computer industry.  The most
>important commercial and governmental data in the 40s and 50s was
>managed on punched cards with 80 characters of storage.  With this
>extremely limited memory for a commercial or governmental 
>transactions,
>it would have been foolish to use a 4 digit year field.  Further, it 
>was
>impossible to anticipate the consequences of stored program 
>computers.
>
>In the mid 50s, when computers with magnetic tape became practical,
>institutions most valuable data was moved from cards to tape and the
>same processing algorithims as used in cards were turned into 
>programs.
>The "birth defect" moved forward with no awareness of a problem 
>looming
>40 years ahead - hardly greedy gain maximizatiion.  By the way, early
>computers did not even have clocks.
>
>Later modern computers with on-line disks greatly expanded the 
>variety
>of programs that used this most essential, historic data.  Naturally
>these new programs used the data as it existed with 2 digit year
>fields.  Further, until the 70s there was no notion of forward
>compatibility between computer generations.  None of these "blinded"
>designers  and their greedy employers thought their programs would 
>have
>anything to do with the world 30 years later.
>
>By the time there was some awareness of the Y2K issue in the late 
>70s,
>the birth defect was pervasive.  Any new systems (PCs and 
>minicomputers)
>that connected to these systems shared this inhereted fault to some
>degree and here we are.
>
>I managed dozens of programming projects and never had a programmer
>advocate 2 digit year fields for efficiency.  They usually complained
>about having to maintain compatibility with customers' legacy data.
>Further, my company also sold hardware and would have been delighted 
>if
>customers would have needed more memory and storage for the larger 
>date
>fields.
>
>Your polemic is totally off base.
>
>Why don't you focus on the most destructive "gain maximizing" force -
>myopic politicians with a decision horizion of the next election.  At
>least in the US, they are doing the worst job of facing the Y2K 
>problem.
>
>Glenn Bacon
>
>