|
You must be one of the few people to get any work from fixing the Y2K bugs because me and my freinds didn't as much as we would have like too and most people today regard the Y2K trouble as one big hoax.
Google it.
switching over to Euro's kept ten times more people in work than Y2K ever did, myself included
No i cannot use any of the one billion addresses reserved by the USA and that's my point, no one is using them because huge american/uk corporations have taken all the water out of the well and are just sitting on it.
|
|
|
|
|
I also spent a lot of time fixing Y2K issues. A lot of developers I have worked with in the 90s also worked on Y2K. The reason that people regard Y2K as a big hoax is because companies spent a fortune correcting problems. It's as though people feel cheated because power plants didn't explode.
|
|
|
|
|
Must had been a US thing or the circles you move in because here in the UK I work with some very highly paid professionals who are MVP/MCP/MCSD/Msc/Phd and many are saying the same as me.
Not a question of wanting to see the world come to an end but we were all ready to earn some serious cash working over christmas but the offers never came in so we all knew it was hot air.
Euro conversion was much bigger not that it created a gold rush like we all wanted
Anyway why is it a good thing for US corporations to sit on so many un used IP's ?
You do know that Ipv6 gives us something like four hundred million, billion time more addreses than we have Ipv4 addresses and as you know from my comments above i like making money but not at the cost of becomeing watched more than i am now.
Ipv5 at 8 bits, not 16, would suite me fine
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly the industries I was working in at the time - I was heavily in industrial systems then. Perhaps you just weren't in the right field - and I'm based in the UK as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I was working for BT at the time in Matelsham research labs as a contractor and got to play with 2mb internet before anyone else i knew.
MS-Access, bit of Excell, SQL-Server 6.5 and i think it was VB4, maybe VB5 was my field at the time so maybe i needed to be more into AS400's or something like COLBOLT to have got any offers.
Also used NT4 server, didn't like XP98, too soft for me at the time
|
|
|
|
|
Try dedicated DCS. These were all proprietary systems. Not fun. Lucrative, but not fun.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been known to work on Simens PLC Controls but they didn't have dates and just used ladders.
Looks like the other poster nailed it with banking and old colbolt systems and i was not working in banking at the time using anything like that.
What systems were you working on ?
|
|
|
|
|
Plant reading systems - oil fields.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: It's as though people feel cheated because power plants didn't explode.
Well, yes. We were promised the apocalypse. Food, water, fuel and illegal weapons were hoarded, because it was necessary to survive.
Nothing significant happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: Nothing significant happened.
It would indeed have been more fun if they had not given a warning a year in advance.
Now, since when does mass-media describe a technical issue in a non-hyping and technically correct (read 'boring') way? No new Y2k bug for some time - it'll be all about cyberwars, cyberterrorists and cybercrime now.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given the state of the world, it does not seem like something to worry about 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: You must be one of the few people to get any work from fixing the Y2K bugs because me and my freinds didn't as much as we would have like too and most people today regard the Y2K trouble as one big hoax.
You must be here to make some friends, calling my work a hoax 
Dr Gadgit wrote: switching over to Euro's kept ten times more people in work than Y2K ever did, myself included
So you counted them?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
"So you counted them"
No need to count to know we have more ants in the world than people.
I did not say your work was a hoax, guess someone must had harcoded "19" into to programs somewhere in the world but it's not like the number moved from being a INT to a Long or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: No need to count to know we have more ants in the world than people.
Ehr.. it is not about ants. If you claim that more money is made on the introduction of the Euro (for some merely a change in Windows-settings) than the Y2k bug cost, then I expect something to back that claim.
Dr Gadgit wrote: I did not say your work was a hoax
No, it was just implied.
Dr Gadgit wrote: guess someone must had harcoded "19" into to programs somewhere in the world but it's not like the number moved from being a INT to a Long or anything.
Keep guessing, if you do it long enough you'll be right sometime.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I gave you the logic for my statement and I didn't have to switch anything on windows come 1/1/2001 or posted any of the millions of pages on the internet to say that Y2K was a scam.
Now I am not alone in my thoughts in Y2K but admit i am on my own about saying we are not running out of ipv4 addresses so why not take a crack at that one to keep things a bit more on topic !
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: I gave you the logic for my statement
Yes, by stating you need not count ants.
Dr Gadgit wrote: I didn't have to switch anything on windows come 1/1/2001 or posted any of the millions of pages on the internet to say that Y2K was a scam.
Correct, it is a statement without argumentation. Might be because there is no Y2k1 bug.
Dr Gadgit wrote: why not take a crack at that one to keep things a bit more on topic !
Because you made the connection in your first post. I also already gave my argumentation on that one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Your words-smith does not impress me so yes, anything you say !
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: Your words-smith does not impress me
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: millions of pages on the internet to say that Y2K was a scam.
Just shows how many people have no understanding of what the issue was. Indeed how could it be a scam, since no one made any illegal money from it. And even now we see examples of programmers writing code that is not Y2K compliant: largely because they do not understand some of the basic issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Selling nuclear bunkers is not a scan, not illegal and many of the people posting about Y2K being a scam are professionals so would you like to provide this "understanding" about 2000 please because computers tend to count in chunks of eight bits and 2000 is not like year 1024 or 2048.
Having started life using a computer with only 48k I understand the need to save space when cooking code and i get that someone may have wrote code like
if (Year NOT StartWith '19') chuck an error 'Bad Date';
But the amount of code still in use that used a number system broken by tripping over 100, given 8 bits was low to say the least.
Wiki says
"Storage of a combined date and time within a fixed binary field is often considered a solution, but the possibility for software to misinterpret dates remains because such date and time representations must be relative to some known origin. Rollover of such systems is still a problem but can happen at varying dates and can fail in various ways"
So we are not out of danger yet i see so should i buy the bomb shelter or should i reverse engineer this to combine a date/time value to fit 32 bits, allow for leap years to predict the next date ?
Credit default swaps and never ending printing is the danger to the banking systems of the world as is hacking when microsoft advises anyone with Skype to just open up all the outbound ports in the firewall but i am yet to read anything to think that Y2K was not a little over done.
|
|
|
|
|
I started on mainframe computers that had only 16K; however that has no relevance to this discussion. The fact remains that there were systems (I worked on some of them) that would, and some still did, have serious problems when the century rolled over. I am actually still not clear why you think it was a scam, it was just something that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: switching over to Euro's kept ten times more people in work than Y2K ever did, myself included
So you experienced the alternative timeline and then decided to go with this one?
Such statements are produced by politicians in an effort to justify and potentially window dress their decisions.
Exception thrown: No data available for Euro-free Europe since 01.01.2002.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
VB4 I think we were using at the time had no trouble with "2000" dates and SQL-Server 6.5 (god it had some bugs back then) worked fine too with the switch
Data held in the database as french franks needed converting as did front ends that didn't show the euro symbol, both need work in my Quantum "alternative timeline"
I am no fan of the Euro and the "EC" mark is not a sign of quality or saftey but of a monopoly
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
