Very Computer

It's becoming more and more apparent to me that with the threat of
litigation, what you say and how you say it, is coming very important
and very finite.

I went to showing of a Y2k tool called Y2KSOLVR.  And of the 3
"experts", one was the vice president of the bank that developed the
software, and another was a lawyer advising clients about Y2k.

The VP mentioned that it was their intention to make their software
"Y2k compliant", but not to "certify" the software as Y2k compliant.
He pointed out that they had cleaned up their software, but when the
next product release went in a few months later, they checked the
updates, and sure enough, 4 modules had Y2k problems....including a
hardcoded "19".

Later, the lawyer started telling everyone that it was very important
to prove that your vendors, and servicers are Y2k compliant, and to
push for certification.  And if that wasn't going to happen, to get
"with due diligence", specific and well explained written statements
of compliance.

So, in a nutshell, one is saying "don't give certification", and the
other is saying "get ceritfication from everybody else".  (Comment:
Gee, we're all working well together on this, aren't we guys!?!?!).

The impression I'm getting is that "certification" means you're
guranteeing the software as Y2k compliant.  And statements of
compliance are statements that you "believe to the best of your
knowledge" that your software is Y2k compliance.

Now, I'm starting to here a new term:  Y2k enabled

Does anybody know specifically what this means?

Anybody know of any more legal "mumbo jumbo"?

Tim Oxler
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
http://www.teo-computer.com

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) website, they define "Y2K compliant" as
meaning the system in question will handle all date-
related calculations correctly into the next century.

They define "Y2K ready" as referring to
a system or component that "has been determined
to be suitable for continued use into the year 2000
even though the computer system or application is
not fully Y2K compliant."

See http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/GL9801.html

Quote:>According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
>(NRC) website, they define "Y2K compliant" as
>meaning the system in question will handle all date-
>related calculations correctly into the next century.

>They define "Y2K ready" as referring to
>a system or component that "has been determined
>to be suitable for continued use into the year 2000
>even though the computer system or application is
>not fully Y2K compliant."

COMPLIANCE Year 2000 Compliant systems will accurately store, retrieve,
identify, display, process, calculate, compare, sequence, manipulate,
report, and accept date and time data unambiguously interpreting the correct
century and year.  These systems must successfully interface with -- and
exchange data with all other Year 2000 compliant systems.  Compliant
systems must automatically cross into the year 2000 without experiencing any
date-related failures, and must properly treat the year 2000 and all
subsequent leap years as years of 366 days.  Furthermore, use of a Year 2000
compliant system must not cause the premature expiration of any security
system, license, or file access due to the Year 2000 crossing.

The federal definition: Year 2000 compliant means information technology
that accurately processes date/time data (including, but not limited to,
calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000 and leap
year calculations.  Furthermore, Year 2000compliant information technology,
when used in combination with other information technology, shall accurately
process date/time data if the other information technology properly
exchanges date/time data with it.  (per Federal Acquisition Regulation
[FAR] Part 39.002, published in the Federal Acquisition Circular [FAC]
90-45)

<Minnesota-specific B.S. removed for the sake of those who wish to maintain
their sanity>

Since there is no single definitive set of standards which may be uniformly
applied, the term "compliance" continues to be a heavily debated topic.
Avoid products that aspire to being "Year 2000 Ready", since this label
implies less than full compliance, often requiring deliberate action on the
part of the user to achieve an unqualified measure of compliance.

Hope that I have sufficiently muddied the waters for everyone.

Ciao,

Scott "Merriam Webster" Secor