To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Depends on how you define Y2K.
If Y2K was about how a single flaw in a single system somewhere would kill all civilization. Then no, this is not that.
If Y2K was about how some developers fail to think a few years into the future with localized bad results, then yes. This is that.
If Y2K was about how a single flaw in a single system somewhere would kill all civilization. Then no, this is not that.
If Y2K was about how some developers fail to think a few years into the future with localized bad results, then yes. This is that.
It went way beyond "some developers" although most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the decision-makers.
Bob Bemer started petitioning everyone from programmers to politicians starting in the early 60s about the problems with 2-digit dates - they didn't listen and he wasted several decades trying to convince them.
Everyone assumed that "Y2K" trouble was only about the year 2000, but most computers actually had different date boundaries.
The year 2000 was only a problem for those who stored dates in ascii/ebsdic form. Mainframes seem to be unusual in their use of BCD and nine's complement within their vsam files, which is why they were especially susceptible to the two digit overflow.
Binary time representations such as those in *nix have different limits, but they're also approaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem




Member since:
2005-09-15
If the world's (arguably) premiere software company, with all the lessons learned and experience gained during decades of development could have had a disastrous outage caused by an extra day,
then all those who bitch that all the money and effort spent on the Y2K fixes were a waste and that we were hoodwinked by a bunch of grouchy, grimy COBOL programmers looking for a last big payout can just shut the FUCK up.