|
> I agree with that and started to note that in my post but got sidetracked >(cute > little 2 year old needing Dad) ! Thanks they do that at this time of year, huh! > <AND, we actually have seen source code with comments from the original >vendor along > with code documenting where date routines are to be not executed because they >knew in > 1993 that their code wasn't going to work after 1999...THAT is defecive > code...and should get a vendor zapped!> > > WOW - THAT is incredible (and dumb <G>) - agree here too !! well, maybe. it could have been notes to themselves that the code needed attention. i can see the other view too... when was the code originally written? did the vendor discuss the y2k problem with the users, and did they reject the cost of modifications? sometimes you do what you have to do to get by the situation. it never ceases to amaze me that users will reject any costs associatied with modernizing software, and then hold the vendor responsible because it didn't get done. users just expect code to be modified for free. i guess they want the program fairy to come down and do it for them.. nj
begin: vcard fn: nina jones n: jones;nina org: Data Design Inc adr: 2408 Tee Circle;;;Norman;Oklahoma;73069;USA email;internet: ddi@datadesigninc.com title: Chief Programmer and bottle washer tel;work: 405-321-0354 tel;fax: 405-360-9202 tel;home: 405-364-8960 note: IBM Business Partner x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.