Denial (millennium problem) LO10794

john taylor (jotaylorg@qni.com)
Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:57:30 -0600

Replying to LO10745

[Host's Note: I'm a little concerned about this thread, that it be
connected to org learning wherever it goes from here. I prefer not to
distribute further msgs that do not have a learning element. ...Rick]

Sherri Malouf wrote:

> ...many computers are not capable of going past the year 1999 and
> that we really don't have a handle on the true impact this will have.

> This is a very real issue which we face now but are not facing. We
> have a huge network of systems which are computer dependent which we
> are largely unaware of!

Sherri,

First of all let me point out that my knowledge of computers is PC based
in LAN's, WAN's etc and that I don't know much about mainframe systems so
my following comments are rooted in this knowledge.

I don't think we should be very concerned with the 2000 thing. How many
versions of programs and operating systems that are running today will be
running 3 years from now? I mean the EXACT version with no upgrades. I say
less than 1%. Think back 3 years and ask yourself, how much stuff on your
PC is still the exact same version? I think you will be hard pressed to
find anything.

A program or OS will have, I'd say, 3 to 10 or new versions of itself
released by this time 1999. Software companies (I happen to work for a
software developer) are aware of the 2000 dilema and are taking care of
this in newer versions that would be released anyway whether this was 1996
or 1906.

I would say the reason not a lot of buzz is going on about it is due in
large part to the aforementioned reasons. So to answer your question of
What are we doing about this? In my compnay's case anyway, exactly what
we should be doing.

John Taylor
jotaylor@qni.com

-- 

john taylor <jotaylor@qni.com>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>