I hate to get into Y2K discussions because there is always someone who will
misunderstand what I have said.
I have had my own words from appends to this list show up in
correspondence from marketing reps, who claimed that I told this or that
customer that NetView is not Y2K compliant. But that is not true. NetView
is Y2K compliant. It is as compliant as we know how to make it. We have
tested it, and tested it, and tested it. Have we found every possible bug?
I don't know, and I am a pessimist by nature (there's always one more bug
no matter how small), so I am reluctant to even discuss this issue. But
here goes.
NetView V5.0 was certified as Y2K ready. You can read about that on the
Tivoli web site. But that does not mean that no problems were found. It
means that in normal use most people will not see any. After several weeks
of more exhaustive testing, the Verification people came up with a list of
three minor things that had to be addressed, such as some log timestamps
which said "mm-dd-100", a filter editor panel that could not deal with
"00" as a year, and
a man page example that failed trying to divide by "00". These were fixed
in 5.1. So as I say, there were some minor problems fixed in Version 5.1.
Is that all of them? I don't know. But I am confident that there are
not, and never were, any really major ones. Does that mean that 5.0
wasn't Y2K ready? No, it means that there were found a few minor problems
after it was certified. And it means that you should try to stay as
current on maintenance as you can if you are worried about things which
even experienced testers found it hard to find.
Y2K verification for us is on-going. We have machines which are running
now with the date set to some time after January 1, 2000, just to make sure
that we don't re-introduce any problems and to continue to try to find any
that are left. If we find any, then we will fix those as quickly as
possible, so being current on maintenance is the best policy here.
Hope this helps
James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support
Ludovic Sauvourel <ludovic.sauvourel@CREDITLYONNAIS.FR> on 01/20/99
04:11:45 AM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
cc: (bcc: James Shanks)
Subject: R
éf. : Re: NetView V5 and Year 2000
Thanks for your answser but, why do you means by "though there were some
minor problems fixed in
NetView Version 5.1." ?
Are these problems bound to Year 2000 compliance ?
|