Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology IT

Y2K: Hoax, Or Averted Disaster? 625

Allnighterking writes "Y2K -- remember the fear it generated? Cartoons were written about it. The dried food industry saw a boom. Doomsayers abounded. But in the end, no planes fell, no one died and the electric grid stayed up for three more years. Was it all a hoax? Or was it the result of careful and complete planning and upgrading. American RadioWorks has a series of articles talking about the disaster that never happened called Y2K You can either Listen in or read the Transcripts of each of the 3 broadcasts and decide for yourself. The over 100 Billion pumped into the US economy alone may well have fueled the boom and predicated the bust. Could the success at Y2K prevention have made the coming problem in 2038 something people will ignore?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Y2K: Hoax, Or Averted Disaster?

Comments Filter:
  • It happened (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pommiekiwifruit ( 570416 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @08:53AM (#11262551)
    Well Y2K stopped our overtime system from working - we had to enter dates in from 28 years ago. It also stopped a (time-limited) graphics editor that I wrote from working - it was due to stop at 31/12/1999 but the time-bomb code didn't handle further dates properly anyway! Dang DOS API calls...
  • not a hoax (Score:5, Interesting)

    by treebeard77 ( 68658 ) * <<ten.draebeert> <ta> <draebeert>> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:04AM (#11262608)
    I work for an international bank and we fixed 2-300 Y2K bugs. I know; I tested the changes & found more doing the testing. Obviously, some were more critical than others. We also upgraded release levels of system software. I also know that some were missed. The thing is, they were attributed to something else when they occurred. Noone would admit that they had missed a Y2K bug after all the $$$ thrown at the problem. I'm sure my situation is not unique.
  • A compiler?? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:05AM (#11262613)
    The only thing I saw that stopped working in Y2K was a compiler for embedded systems that crashed if it tried to generate output files with timestamps in Y2K. Duh!! So we had to isolate a couple of machines, wind the clock back, and use those.

    (I already knew that cross compilers for embedded systems were generally crap but I really hadn't expected that particular problem.)
  • Y2k Over Rated (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:09AM (#11262632)
    For most program especially many of the end of the world if program fails programs. Are not that dependent on the time. Even a lot of the finanical programs. The Date was to just allow the person to get a reference and not much on how the computer did a lot of its processing. Sure there were some spots where it would go 99 to 00 but that was rather rare. Most of the y2k bugs I have seen (and I have seen a fiew after y2k) were just in silly small applications. Like I saw a 1900 in a hotel that had a terminal that displayed the date and time and what was happening today. And still on Milk bottles Ill see expires 1-4-105. For most of those Y2k bugs it was more of a display and user input issue then a rollover issue. During the late 90s I was was doing some fox pro development. And I just had to go to each program and set the year to 4 digit and then stretch the text boxes so it fixed. Fox Pro still internally held the year as 4 digit but just displayed the 2 digits. Besides why would a most people internally handle the year as 2 chars, that fills up 16 bits of storage. If they were using old computers where those bit count they would just use 1 char to store the number and still be able to get to the year 2155 as far in storage and calculations. But people were scared because it was a computer and computers are scary. So they called on all the people they made fun of in highschool to fix the problem.
  • Anecdotal ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the bluebrain ( 443451 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:11AM (#11262647)
    Working for a facility management company, contracted to a large client in Switzerland, three months prior to the Y2k bitflip. Checked dozens of devices, big and small: embedded controllers for climate control, UPS's, fire alarms, you name it. Found one item: a Compaq PC used for the lighting system had a non-Y2k-compliant BIOS. The result of doing nothing would have been that the weekend lighting profiles for all (several hundred) offices, meeting rooms, and so on would have been active during the week (you know - wrong offset when attempting to calculate whether "today" is a weekend).

    Replaced computer, had no problems.

    Moral of the story: this was a lighting system. Big deal. The client invested several tens of thousands in the project to check three large office buildings in my location, and avoided a minor pain in return. However: everything was checked, and it might have been anything. If it had been the UPS's or the fire alarms for instance, the result of not doing anything could have been a major pain. Point is - we found something, so it wasn't just a waste of time.

    ( /. is the right place for anecdotal evidence, right?)
  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:17AM (#11262676)
    I'm sure anyone who helps support small businesses and their use of IT to run them knows this WAS an averted disaster. Most small companies, in 1999, were using accounting systems (and running them on platforms) that absolutely, positively, would have failed. There were untold thousands of businesses handling shipping, payroll, payables - core stay-in-business stuff - on older versions of FoxPro, or creaky older copies of Unix-based accounting software running on prehistoric Altos machines, and so on.

    These would all, everyone of them, puked big time without serious remediation. In many cases it was line-by-line code work, or the building of elaborate insulating layers between modules. In many cases, the cleanest and most rational fix really was a system upgrade. But I can tell you (from having simulated calendar rollovers on such systems), that on 1/1/2000, a lot of my customers (minus the serious work), would have been unable to buy, sell, pay their people, etc., for weeks into 2000 - at which point many would have been mortally wounded. This was no hoax, and the most important work I did at that time was educating the business owners who kept hearing the words "hoax" or "exagerated" on the news.

    I wasn't worrying myself about planes falling out of the sky, but I was worried about calamitous damage to a huge chunk of the economy: the $2-15M/year business. Of course, I like to hunt, so no harm buying a little extra freeze-dried food anyway, right?
  • by Sircus ( 16869 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:21AM (#11262695) Homepage
    Traffic lights for example have failsafes in them to stop such things... anyway why does a traffic light care about the year? The day of the week/month maybe.

    If it cares about the day of the week, (and it's working this out from the date, rather than using a 0-6 counter and a clock) it's going to need to know the correct year to work that out correctly. I agree that a lot of this was hype - even if the traffic light *did* think it was Sunday when it was Monday, nothing terrible's going to happen.

    Similarly, elevators don't give a hoot what year it is.

    I'm no elevator engineer, but as far as I recall, more complex elevators do know (for example) "It's 9am - when I'm doing nothing I'd be best served by going to the bottom of the building, since people are going to be arriving." This would presumably be achieved by a simple RTC, with (quite possibly) the full date*. If the RTC suddenly wraps over into an invalid state, that'd probably be a problem for the elevator. Again, we have stairs, the world will not end - but lots and lots of these kinds of problems *could* have caused a good degree of inconvience.

    * A reply to this might be "Stupid elevator engineers! The elevator just needed a 24-hour clock!". A possible counter-point would be that the elevator engineer was forseeing an elevator that responded to different day-of-week usage patterns ("It's Friday, everybody goes home early, I'll go to the top floors earlier than I would otherwise do", "It's Sunday, I'll optimise for trips between street level and the tourist observation balcony", etc.).
  • Re:Mirror? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:26AM (#11262732) Journal
    Any idea why they decided on a signed int? seems like a stupid idea to me. After doubling it to a 64bit int well have 584942417355 years! which brings me to the point.. why didnt they just make it a 64 in the first place, sure most machines wernt 64bit back then, but hey, most wernt even 32bit!
  • Re:Perl Script (Score:3, Interesting)

    by autocracy ( 192714 ) <slashdot2007@sto ... .com minus berry> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:26AM (#11262736) Homepage
    ... no, it doesn't work.. It gets to 03:14:07, and just sticks there. the last four entries are 02:14:07. Just tested it on my powerbook... same thing. *shrug* like it'll last that long.
  • Re:Perl Script (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rjch ( 544288 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:27AM (#11262739) Homepage
    ./tst

    Tue Jan 19 03:14:01 2038
    Tue Jan 19 03:14:02 2038
    Tue Jan 19 03:14:03 2038
    Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 2038
    Tue Jan 19 03:14:05 2038
    Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038
    Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
    Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901
    Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901
    Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901

    I guess Gentoo isn't 2038 ready. Must be time to panic.
  • by Da Web Guru ( 215458 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @09:54AM (#11262912)
    I'm no elevator engineer, but as far as I recall, more complex elevators do know (for example) "It's 9am - when I'm doing nothing I'd be best served by going to the bottom of the building, since people are going to be arriving."

    Well, if the clock fails, then all will happen is that people have to wait an extra minute or two for an elevator. As long as the elevator doesn't fall down the shaft, everything will be okay.
  • by io333 ( 574963 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:04AM (#11262973)
    Don't believe the hype. Traffic lights for example have failsafes in them to stop such things

    Twice in my life I've seen traffic lights stuck on green in both directions. I don't know how it can happen, because I don't know how traffic lights are switched. Nevertheless.

  • I remember. . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:13AM (#11263013)
    I remember being on a cruddy come-down subway ride around 1 AM, Jan 1st 2000, and asking one of the two cops who were riding the train with me,

    "So what's it been like for you this evening?"

    One of them turned to observe me. She glared with that particular flavor of ultra-tough female no-monkey-business copitude we have all seen.

    "It's going fine, sir. The Y2K Bug is just a myth."

    Okidoke, ma'am. Have a happy.


    -FL

  • Re:Collective fear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mark_in_Brazil ( 537925 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:27AM (#11263143)
    firstly it was a genuine problem with many back-end financial (and other) systems...

    So, for most people's point of view it was a lot of fuss about nothing, because they never saw the real problem, which could have caused serious problems, and only saw the hyped, non problem.
    It's true that Y2K problems on personal computers (at least home ones) probably wouldn't have been very severe, even without preventive fixes. But it is also true that there were some systems where Y2K and similar problems could have caused serious havoc.
    I think one example of systems that could have had problems and could have caused serious trouble were the avionics and other systems in airplanes (and air traffic control). I recall reading articles about the hard work the Y2K teams did, digging into these systems looking for any component that might have a 2-digit year or other similar problem.
    I also recall reading that the Chinese government found a very good way of making sure Chinese airlines would be safe: Chinese airline officials (executives?) were required to be in passenger planes in the air as 1999 ended and 2000 began.
  • Re:Collective fear (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TykeClone ( 668449 ) * <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:29AM (#11263166) Homepage Journal
    BTW, our vendor found "one more bug" late in December 1999. We had to install a Y2K patch while we were doing year-end processing on 30 December. Fortunately, I had insisted we close 31 December to give us time for just such emergencies.

    Good God! Are you still with that vendor? We chose to stay open on 12/31 (it was a FRB business day) because we are an ag bank and usually do a tremendous amount of business on 12/31.

    I think that at one point I figured that the amount of paperwork I had to do to "prove" that we were in good shape doubled the amount of work involved in preparations.

    I ran our core system's "test bank" in updates past 1/1/2001. For each "critical date" I calculated interest accruals and compared them to what the system calculated. I ran transactions and made sure that they posted properly.

    The people I really felt sorry for during the process was our Board of DIrectors. They had to listen to me for 1 or 2 hours at each meeting talk about Y2K preparedness.

    As a side note, I was home before midnight that night - and I was the last one out of the bank.

  • by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:35AM (#11263204) Homepage Journal
    Think about all the web pages and applications that were displaying the odd five digit year. 11000 I think it was. So I wouldn't say it was a hoax as a whole. There were a lot of opportunistic assholes who saw it as a chance to charge people for upgrades that weren't necessary either though. Not to mention the fear mongers who relied on the natural human tendency to fear the unknown (dried food sales as an example). I will point out that I had a program written in 1993 from the Norton Desktop for Windows 3.1. It was the Norton Dayplanner. I stuck it on a floppy when I got it and carried it with me as a "PDA". I had batch files that I used to sync it with my desktops at home and work. It worked well. Just a few weeks ago I found one of my archival copies of it on CD and ran it under W.I.N.E. Still works, and the dates are correct as well as the year. Interestingly enough, when I ran it in Windows 95, it would skewer the dates past the year 2000. So the app is fine, it was the OS that had the problem. I think in many cases, this was true and it's where a lot of people got taken. They paid for upgrades to apps that relied on the OS for proper date calculation. The main problem is... how do you know this without hindsight? That is how people got taken.
  • Re:Collective fear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grantdh ( 72401 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:50AM (#11263338) Homepage Journal
    Secondly it was an over-hyped problem that was never really going to affect desktop PC's and the like, which was over-sold to the public and never materialised.

    Agreed that it was overhyped, but there were desktop level systems that would have died without work. I saw a number of them during testing and prep during '98/'99 :)

    The classic was all those xBase systems that used Substr(Dtos([datevale]),3), effectively stripping off the "useless" first 2 digits (apologies if my syntax is incorrect - it's been a while :) One insurance based system calculated premiums and totals completely wrong because it had 2000 values coming before 1996 values when summing a long workers comp claim, etc. As a result, the system refused to write cheques, or wrote cheques too big/small, etc. Rather embarrassing and, given the number of clients hanging off the application (and thus the number of claims processed, cheques produced, etc), leading to a lot of pissed off people in the first few months of 2000 :)

    Of the work I did on Y2K (including a large Telco, small organisations, a couple of software houses and a public transport service), I'd say about 70% of it was valid. The rest was all being done to dot the i's, cross the t's and keep the lawyers at bay if anything went wrong (eg: "Yes your honour, we did do all that we could to check. It's strange that this one got through but it's not for want of trying, so tell those bastards to naff off and take someone else to court" :)
  • Dit-toe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:23PM (#11264192) Homepage Journal
    I worked at a major financial institution during the same time period. We had many back-end systems that were running on old POS hardware/OSs that were not going to work at all when the clock flipped. We spend many a weekend/night replacing every POS system, and were ready by early 1999. When the clock flip came, we'd already run several tests (manually setting the clocks to 23:45 1999-12-31 and waiting 15 minutes) on every system, so it was more of an anticlimax than anything else.

    However, if we had not done any of that, critical systems would have gone down and we would have lost serious money (millions) on bad trades, fines for failure to settle properly, loss of business from negative publicity, etc.

  • Re:Don't be silly (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) * <mikemol@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:27PM (#11264248) Homepage Journal
    This past weekend, I made a silly typo while setting my hardware clock in Linux. The result was a discovery that my hardware clock can't be set past the year 2020. And the BIOS is dated 2000.
  • by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:33PM (#11264315)
    The green-yellow-green is probably the result of a poorly-designed traffic-sensitive program. The time comes for the low-traffic side to get a green light and the high-traffic side prepares to go red by changing to yellow. The controller then checks for cars in the low-traffic side, finds none, and aborts the green for the low-traffic side, returning green to the high-traffic side.
  • Re:Not a hoax (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:36PM (#11264332)
    my point was how this was sold to the end users that THEIR computers were flawed

    But they were! Especially in the context of my original remarks (smaller businesses running desktop accounting systems, etc), the stuff running on their machines would absolutely have tanked (or worse - seemed to be working, while corrupting data). Most end users (not slash-dotters!) have a very blurry distinction between their hardware, the operating system, the network, the application, and the data. The accounts payable supervisor for a small business will tell you that she "goes to her computer" to pay an invoice, or the shipping clerk will tell you that he "uses his computer" to make UPS shipments.

    It was up to us systems people to know how compartmentalized (or not) the problem was in 1999. It was up to good business managers to not engage IT contractors that would defraud them or sell them something they didn't need. Many people hired consultants to police the consultants.

    On the home front, there absolutely were people with this problem built-in. Folks using older BIOS versions, two-versions-ago copies of home bean counting software from Intuit, non-patched copies of MS Access, and so on. Would a mis-dated home computer or confused home-consumer desktop app have caused serious financial problems or risk? Probably not as much. Were the problems real? Sure they were, but not for everybody in the same way.

    I loathe the scare-tactic opportunists in IT as much as the next guy, but what's even worse are psuedo-pundits that falsely soothe nerves and talk people out of being personally thoughtful about something like Y2K and its direct impact on their situation. For what it's worth, by the way, out of a constellation of about a dozen friends-and-family PCs that I had adopted as tech support charity cases in 1999, probably five or six were spared some inconvenience by things I did for them pre-2000, and two of them were spared major screw-ups in their personal financial records (stock software, etc.). If those people's time is worth anything (I say, it is), then dealing with the problem up front avoided stress, potential fiscal ugliness, and the loss of the value of that time.

    I assure you that not one person I interacted with during that period, business or personal, considered the fixes to be hype. Of course, I LONG for those days, when it was something easy to deal with: now those same end users are getting killed with malware that's much more productivity-killing and likely to cause an ill-defined sense of general computing dread. Sigh.
  • by johnw ( 3725 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @02:25PM (#11265526)
    There was of course a real second problem in the year 2000 - it had 54 weeks, which tripped up at least one computer system (running a Scandinavian rail system IIRC).

    John
  • Re:Not a hoax (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jschrod ( 172610 ) <jschrod@acmFORTRAN.org minus language> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @02:49PM (#11266001) Homepage
    Because you worked for a company that cheated on its customers, doesn't mean that the Y2K problem wasn't real in other areas. I know that the errors in the bank systems that I have fixed in 98 and 99 would have cost hundreds of millions and would have most likely caused employees their jobs. (Even a bank cannot endure such losses without counter actions.)

    This might not be relevant to you, but then, you worked for a company that made a scam as their business principle. Not someone I would buy anything from.

  • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @04:19PM (#11267480) Homepage Journal
    I worked at a major medical center at the time and began asking the IT director to appoint a Y2K coordinator around '96. You can imagine how many systems are running in a shop with tens of thousands of employees.

    Well, it was all a "hoax" or "overblown" according to the beancounters until around early 1999, when the press picked up the story for real. Then there was a realization, a sudden panic, and by March of '99 there was a Y2K coordinator in place. The rest of the year was spent in a mad panic to fix/certify the systems. You can imagine how much real work got done during that time.

    I imagine this wasn't an isolated incident. Anybody else?
  • by Jetson ( 176002 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @07:35PM (#11270298) Homepage
    BTW, our vendor found "one more bug" late in December 1999.

    Where I work (air traffic control) we did extensive testing for two or three years prior to the big event. Most of our major systems were unaffected or easily corrected, although about 20% of the corporate desktops were red-flagged.

    We did have one legacy system that we couldn't replace that was known to be a problem. The short-term solution was to roll back the clock to 1972 (the last leap year that started on a Saturday). Everything was fine for about 4 months. Then one day all the flight plans were wrong.

    After some investigation it was determined that the shift to daylight savings time in 1972 was on a different weekend than the one in 2000. Normally that wouldnt't be a problem as all aviation-related time and date fields are stored in UTC form. This particular computer, however, was responsible for automatically injecting the scheduled carrier flights into the flight-data system on a daily basis so the airlines wouldn't have to send new flight plans all the time. When the clocks change in the spring and fall, the airlines shift their schedule by one hour UTC so that the 7:00 AM (local) flight still takes off at 7:00 AM. Since this computer thought it was daylight savings time a week or two early, it added one hour to all of the proposed departure times just like it was supposed to do.

    We don't normally send flight plans to the computer more than an hour before departure, so the airlines were loading the passengers, closing the doors, and then finding out there was no record of the flight with ATC. The controllers would hand-write the flight data strip and send the aircraft on its way, only to have the computer-generated flight data strip pop out shortly thereafter.

    This bug was very easy to fix, but obviously very difficult to predict.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...