From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Feb 6 06:11:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14990 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:11:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from phoebe.accinet.net (root@phoebe.accinet.net [204.245.83.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA14924 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:11:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robl@phoebe.accinet.net) Received: from [204.245.83.21] (powerbook.accinet.net [204.245.83.21]) by phoebe.accinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA10156; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:11:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802061411.JAA10156@phoebe.accinet.net> Subject: Re: Year 2000 compliance statement? Date: Fri, 6 Feb 98 09:12:31 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0, March 15, 1997 From: Rob Levandowski To: "Studded" , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe questions" On 2/6/98 3:31 AM, Studded (Studded@san.rr.com) wrote: > That said, I would like to point out something that I think you're >overlooking Rob. Several people had very useful replies to this thread >that I think got lost in the penis waving. The operating system itself >is 99.9% sure to not have Y2K problems, however, the APPLICATIONS you >run on it may have problems. Your best bet is to do what the FreeBSD >project did, and set up a machine running a recent version of -Stable >some point in the future (past 2,000) and let it run for a while doing >what you would have it be doing. You should also set up a machine 7-10 >days before 12/31/99 and let it run your apps through the change and >into *that* parallel future. > > My point is simply this. You can collect all the compliance statements >you want, but when the fat is boiled away, it's your elbow that's going >to be in a sling if the systems you design blow up. The FreeBSD project >has taken things as far as they can, now it's up to you to make sure the >OS is suitable for your environment. I'm with you; it's just that there are two seperate things at work here: a) Making sure that my systems will function correctly after 23:59:59 31 Dec 1999; and b) Appeasing executives who have read a few articles about "the Y2K problem," have little comprehension of the work involved, and want security blankets in the form of a ream of 20 lb. bond, bound up neatly, stating that the people whose software we use aren't idiot enough to ignore the issue. Unfortunately, right now my job doesn't hinge on my coming through with "prove that these systems won't fail due to Y2K;" instead, it hinges on "get statements about Y2K compliance from every vendor and do it in 10 days." As you and others have noted, the FreeBSD team can only speak for the core OS. I have a ton of other software. I have to get statements for every one of those programs. I have to do the same for a cluster of Sun workstations. I have to present all this to a boss who is hell-bent on replacing a perfectly functional P166/FreeBSD machine with a castoff SPARCstation 20 because "Sun is our strategic platform" and "we shouldn't dilute our skills base" and "We can't trust free software to run our business." Thus, my upset at the original reply, which really wouldn't have helped my case to keep the FreeBSD machines. And yes, my like is like a Dilbert cartoon and I'm working on a resume to get out of this place. :) Robert Levandowski UNIX Systems Administrator ACC TeleCom robl@phoebe.accinet.net