Re: Y2K mistake: where they gain-maximizing or not?

[Paul Swann <pswann@easynet.co.uk>]

Roberto Verzola wrote:

>- when the Y2K problem began to be recognized (late '70s according to
>your account), why were the legacy systems not converted?


This is from an article by Robert Sam Anson titled "Nightmare on Main
Street: The Approaching Y2K Disaster" in the January 1999 issue of 'Vanity
Fair'...


The cause of all this? A rationalisation by early computer code programmers
half a century ago who had worked out they would save their companies money
by rendering the date in two digits rather than four.

'I'm one of the culprits who created this problem,' the former proprietor
of a consulting fim told the US Congress last year. 'I used to write those
programs back in the Sixties and Seventies, and was so proud of the fact
that I was able to squeeze a few elements of space by not having to put 19
before the year. It never entered our minds that those programs would have
lasted more than a few years.' Ordinarily expert at spotting future
difficulties, the speaker was Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

A handful were more foresighted. Among them was Robert Bemer, an IBM wizard
and one of the creators of ASCII, the language that enabled different
computer systems to 'talk' to one another. During the Fifties, Bemer also
developed a feature that permitted programmers of Cobol (one of the
earliest computer
languages) to use either two or four-digit year dates.

A passionate proponent of the latter, in 1960 Bemer joined with 47 other
industry and government specialists to come up with universally accepted
computer standards. The wrangling, however, stretched out for years - too
many years for the White House, which, in 1967, ordered the National Bureau
of Standards to settle the matter. In so doing, the bureau was to gather
input from various federal agencies, some of which were using two-digit
years, others four.

As a practical matter, the only opinion that counted was that of the
Department of Defense, the largest computer operator on earth. For
bigger-bang-for-the-buck reasons, it was unshakable on the subject of year
dates: no 19s.

'They wouldn't listen to anything else,' says White, a Department of
Defense computer-code specialist and Bemer ally.'They were more 'occupied
with Vietnam.'

After years of losing fights, White transferred to the Standards Bureau.
Hardly had he arrived when the bureau succumbed to Pentagon pressure and
announced that two-digit years would become the preferred option for
federal agencies, starting January 1, 1970. Hoping for presidential
intervention, White and Bemer rounded up 86 technical societies and asked
Richard Nixon to declare 1970 'The National Computer Year.' When Department
of Defense lobbying kept that appeal from reaching the Oval Office, Bemer
recruited the presidential science adviser Edward E. David, to plead the
case in person. Nixon listened, then asked for help fixing his TV set.

Frantic, Bemer and White beseeched private organisations to call for a
voluntary four-digit-year option. But once more the Pentagon's position
prevailed. Mindful of government contracts, big business went along.

As the Reagan era drew to a close, few even knew that a problem existed.
Bemer had retired in 1982, assuming that, Y2K would be ironed out long
before it did any damage. If something like Pac-Man could be squeezed onto
a chip, he reasoned, how tough could it be to add two digits? Not so
confident, Harry White continued to press old co-workers at the Standards
Bureau. They were sympathetic, but did nothing.'No one wanted to step up to
the plate,' says White, 'It wasn't politically expedient.'

~~~~~~~

On the basis of the above I think we can safely point the finger of blame
at the Pentagon and get on with the real issues...

Paul


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uk-y2k-action is a forum for:

* the exchange of information on Y2K
* the development of mutual support between activists
* the co-ordination of community preparedness initiatives
  in the UK & Ireland

To subscribe please send a blank email to:

uk-y2k-action-subscribe@egroups.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~