More evidence to make us suspect that this happy-hype is simply a spin ... the media do not know any better???

The facade of a quiet rollover 16:40 Saturday 1 January 2000

Glenn Mulcaster A SYSTEMS administrator in Melbourne says the Y2K date rollover issue was always going to be an anticlimax if it was to be dealt with successfully.

Geoff Halprin, managing director of the SysAdmin Group and a committee member of the Systems Administrators Guild of Australia (SAGE-AU), said the rollover phase appears to have been exceptionally quiet.

"It was great to see there were no major catastrophes as we moved across the third world," he said.

However, he suspects that many Y2K date rollover incidents in Australia had been dealt with quietly behind the scenes and were not reported to Y2K coordination centres.

"I don't know if we'll ever know the true story of what happened due to the spin doctoring," he said. "All in all, any failures are being handled in-house." However, he said there would be more information to emerge next week. "A lot of errors won't be uncovered till the user base returns to work on Tuesday," Halprin said. He said the anticlimax may have given the impression to some people that Y2K issue was a joke. However, he stressed that the awareness phase had been important to alert people to potential problems so they could be fixed ahead of time.

Original link was ...

http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20000101/A2503-2000Jan1.html

-- MOD (mod@Y2NOTOK.com), January 02, 2000

Answers

http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20000101/A2503-2000Jan1.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 02, 2000.

See, here's one part of the current debate I find strange -- the insistence that unreported Y2K failures dealt in-house and taken care of equals evidence of 'spin,' 'hype,' etc. down the primrose conspiracy path. As was noted in another thread, not every problem is going to get reported because there's no point in reporting it if it's small, piddly and ends up solved. *shrug* Hell, at work I deal with minor glitches as a matter of course, most of which don't have to do with computers and some of which do -- I don't report every little one to my boss when they all get solved within five seconds and don't repeat, which is almost always the case.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

Ned,

I take your point about the conspiracy path. I am not trying to suggest that people do that. All I am trying to say is that each one of us has the right to make our own minds up based on the facts. Fact number one is that Y2K is a real problem. "glitches" are occuring but oddly enough no one has addmitted to a "glitch" that is minor. Y2K is not a problem that comes and goes on New Years eve. It has potential to be destructive long after that. The nature of the thing is that the longer the problem goes unnoticed, the more major the consequences are likely to be. Companies may not suspect any problems until it is too late. Mistakes happen and should not cost lives.

Check my previous post about aviation. If the FAA are so sure aviation is so safe then show us the evidence? If I as a software developer asked you to go live on my software without showing you any evidence of testing then you would think me crazy. That is what the FAA are asking you to do! I think its a gamble on their behalf because.

I can understand the Pentegon not wishing to divulge they were running at reduced capacity after rollover. There are defence implications. The private sector should not get away with similar behaviour.

-- MOD (mod@Y2NOTOK.com), January 02, 2000.

don't forget--there are high levels of staffing to handle problems now. can't keep that up forever!!!

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 02, 2000.