Motivation of software professionals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stefan Kiryazov
  • Start date Start date
John said:
[...]
It was indeed 2028 when it fell over. I can't remember all of the
exact details, but it was the HP Pascal system, which was based on
UCSD (IIRC). I think the data structure was either defined as being
0..99 or 0..127, and it definitely hit a problem when it rolled over
to 2028, but I can't remember the exact details and don't have access
to the systems any more (I work for a different company).

I suspect it could have been the date encoded in to a 16 bit word as
7 bits - year
4 bits - month
5 bits - day

I did clearly document the date of failure when I was asked to look
in to Y2K, but of course that documentation will be lost before then!
I also documented that the simple work-around would be to set the
date wrong and just write on the printouts the correct date!
Click to expand...

For reference, UCDSD Pascal I.5/II.0/III.0:

daterec = packed record
month: 0..12; { 0 IMPLIES DATE NOT MEANINGFUL }
day: 0..31; { DAY OF MONTH }
year: 0..100 { 100 IS TEMP DISK FLAG }
end { DATEREC } ;

<http://invent.ucsd.edu/technology/cases/1995-prior/SD1991-807.shtml>
Click to expand...

Then I was probably right :-)
Actually, that does sound familiar, apart from the comment about 100. I
know I did active testing, including setting the time to before
midnight, doing power cycles after 2000 (makes sure it did not change on
power up) etc. I think there might have been some display issues outside
the application which we did not care about.

So it just goes to show, we've still got the 2028 problem to deal with!
Perhaps I should brush up on my Pascal!
 
MarkusSchaber said:
Maybe not the locksmith itself, but there are insurance companies
which calculate how high the risk is, and they take that liability.

For locks, cars, even airplanes, insurance companies do that all the
time. But there are only a few cases where this is done for software.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but on those policies, there are usually clauses like "if you
leave your windows wide open, the insurance on your door's locks is null
and void" or "You shall not run your car into a tree while under the
influence of alcohol, or you won't get a bent dime".
You try adding things like that to a computer policy and see how far you
get. "You shall keep your virus scanner up to date and not click on
dubious attachments, or we can't guarantee that the mess you make won't
interfere with our program's operation"? You'll never get away with it.
Better not guarantee anything - you _know_ there are people who will
always mess things up, and they'll be the first to complain.

Richard
 
Lew said:
Yeah. Our jobs would be so much easier if we only didn't have customers!

Don't dis the customers, man. Having a derogatory attitude toward "users"
(there are only two industries that call their customers "users") is a major
arrogance. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

Yah. I suppose you say the same thing to a doctor who complains that his
patients keep smoking?
No, I'm sure _your_ users are all peachy-clean, and _never_ set Outhouse
to automatically execute all attachments, ever. In the real world...

Richard
 
Seebs said:
That might seem "saner", but again, the market is massively improved by
free stuff at the baseline.

Look at it this way: Would science improve if you were guaranteed that
for-pay versions of the Periodic Table were "better" than free ones? No.
It turns out that it's much better for everyone to have basic information
be completely free.
Click to expand...

That's not a valid comparison: the correctness of a Periodic Table can
be measured objectively. The "correctness" of Ganuck-C-plus-extensions
versus Microsoft-C-plus-extensions, OTOH, is a matter of holy wars.

Richard
 
Lew said:
That's pure fantasy.

I used a couple of Linux distributions in the early nineties, and they worked
better than commercial UNIX variants.
Click to expand...

You're mad. I used Solaris to run an Informix database system not ten
years ago, and I would not have run it on Linux for the world. The
business depended on that thing: no database, no newspaper. Linux was
simply Not An Option. That system's successor is run by someone else,
but apparently he (or rather, they) agree with me: it's Oracle, not
Informix, but still running on Sun systems.
The FTP server, meanwhile, ran on Linux. That was fine, for that
purpose. But don't come to me saying that it's better than the
commercial alternatives.
I used emacs and knew many who used vi back then. They were solid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but have you ever used an _editor_? No, a real one?

Richard
 
Seebs said:
I think it may be done occasionally. Certainly, if I had contractual
penalties for downtime, and my choices were Windows or Linux, I'd
run free software. :P
Click to expand...

If I had _that_ choice, I'd not have signed the contract.

Richard
 
Richard said:
You're mad. I used Solaris to run an Informix database system not ten
years ago, and I would not have run it on Linux for the world. The
business depended on that thing: no database, no newspaper. Linux was
simply Not An Option. That system's successor is run by someone else,
but apparently he (or rather, they) agree with me: it's Oracle, not
Informix, but still running on Sun systems.
The FTP server, meanwhile, ran on Linux. That was fine, for that
purpose. But don't come to me saying that it's better than the
commercial alternatives.


Yeah, but have you ever used an _editor_? No, a real one?

Richard
Click to expand...
 
Richard said:
Yeah, but have you ever used an _editor_? No, a real one?
Click to expand...

Sure. emacs and vi. They're real, or are you suggesting I was hallucinating?
For that matter, MS Notepad is a real editor. I certainly would never
imagine such a one if I could help it. My chisel works real well on pebbles
for cuneiform editing, too.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war>

Nice try.
 
Back
Top