Re: The Y2K problem

["R Tennenbaum" raphaelt@xxxxxxxx]

Leslie Bialler wrote:

>When you think about that, this is an outrage! IMHO there is simply no
>excuse for any software produced after, oh say 1992, not to be Y2K
>compliant. One can accept the often-stated excuse that developers before
>that time never imagined their software would still be in use at the
>turn of the century, but by the early 1990s it should have become
>perfectly obvious that much of the software would still be around. Heck!
>As recently as last January an author sent me a project on a 5.25"
>floppy, and I just received a disk from an old Columbia hand who still
>uses Wordstar.

Unconscionable is a nice word for it, imho, in the case of Microsoft,
nothing surprising. The really miserable aspect of this imho is the
degree to which so many of us have swallowed the MS crap hook line and
sinker. I seriously believe it's in part because many reporters hold
MS stock; it simply amazes me to see the idiotic things people wrote
about OS/2, Mac, and even now, Linux -- check out --

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov1998/nf81112c.htm

or, even worse

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moody981120.html

I know sysadmins who are still shaking their heads because they were
forced to dump Netware in favor of NT, for no real reason.

It isn't *just* that MS is so dreadful, it's that the alternatives are
outstanding. Windows2000 or NT5 or whatever -- this thing looks like a
very, very bad joke.

>And of course there's no need to speak of the well known computer
>illiteracy among top management, interested in cost-cutting, that
>persists to this day.

This is a big cause of the problem, the seat of that moronic dictum
that nobody ever got fired for buying MS.

-Rafe T.
raphaelt@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ray-field.com