From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,577c9f9c0cdd76d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Confusing language,
 was Re: Help help.. please.i am totaly new in   ada programing
Date: 1999/11/09
Message-ID: <38288BD4.36352ACB@mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 546598968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7vqgs2$lcc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Ph8U3.1221$933.40473@typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net>
 <38233108.F3540F0@ebox.tninet.se> <806716$i6c2@ftp.kvaerner.com>
 <807109$8m0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38270DC7.86553BB1@pwfl.com>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.991108232625.143000B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.mitre.org
X-Trace: top.mitre.org 942180980 25504 129.83.41.77 (9 Nov 1999 20:56:20 GMT)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Nov 1999 20:56:20 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-09T20:56:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ehud Lamm wrote:
> I am opposed to calling it a bug, myself. But my primary reason is
> different. The Y2K name covers a wide range behaviours, so calling it a
> "bug" is simply wrong - these are many systems, with many inputs and many
> "wrong" behaviours. Maybe a 'class of bugs' maybe better.
 
    The right terminology is "Y2K problem."  Fixing Y2K bugs is usually
a trivial cost, but the cost of testing to find out whether software is
"Y2K compliant" is huge.  The problem is that the economy as a whole
cannot wait until any Y2K bugs occur to determine whether to fix or
scrap the software/hardware/firmware/VCR, etc.  Resource constraints and
the nature of the problem insure that, for most of the software
infrastructure, it is necessary to have Y2K certified software, and Y2K
software testing costs big-time.

   Let me give you a nasty but real example.  Suppose you work for a
credit card company and are charged with supporting a
geographically-distributed replicated database.  If the database is
distributed world-wide, the only available way to do the Y2K testing may
be to duplicate the hardware, the networking infrastructure, and of
course, any software licensing, staff, etc.  If you start planning well
in advance, and many companies in this situation did, you will schedule
your hardware upgrades so that all of your system is replaced at once. 
You do the Y2K testing on the new system, then run live on both systems
for a bit and finally cut over and use only the new hardware.

   Lots of companies have done just that.  Ah, you say, but the cost of
the new hardware can't be charged to the Y2K testing.  Actually the cost
that you see is that the effect on the hardware budget is to put off
some necessary upgrades and accelerate others, etc.  That is the true
cost, and some companies saw tens of millions of dollars in such costs,
just to create the test environment.
-- 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...