Year 2000 and the Computer

	Sign In Sign-Up

Articles and Papers

Written About the Millennium

Computerworld - Hello(?) ... Year 2000 is a leap year!

by Gary Eubanks

2k-Times

April 8, 1997

Note: Computerworld noted the correction the next week, and

printed a correction, again in their "letters" page area. I

truly appreciate their quick response to this matter ... ge.

Yes, Computerworld, there will be a 2000/02/29

by Gary Eubanks

April 8, 1997

The 1997 April 7 issue of Computerworld had two pieces which, I think, set the Year-2000 awareness campaign back a couple of decades. I was going to let their single article carrying the title IBM succumbs to millennium mania, on page 49, slide by as a say-nothing filler. The errors are glaring: IBM has in my opinion long ago tossed away the 'cover my ass' mentality and worked well with everyone from mainframe to their early PS/2 users. With their announcement of a mainframe toolset, they have not 'succumbed' but rather continue to make contributions to both awareness and correcting the Year-2000 problem.

What drove me to write to CW and follow with this article, however, is the following Letter published on page 34. It is framed around a 3/4 x 1 inch black box with large type, declaring ...

There will be no Feb 29, 2000, and I quote:

"A new twist on year 2000"

"Because of my job, I am very concerned about the year

2000 problem. Fortunately, your magazine has done an

excellent job keeping this issue in the forefront.

"I have discovered a new twist on the problem, which

I have yet to read about in any of the trade journals.

According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2000 (which

is evenly divisible by 400) is not a leap year.

Therefore Feb. 29, 2000, is not a valid date.

"So far, we have tested several of our key application

platforms: Windows 95, Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows version

5.0, HP-UX 9.04 calendar command and Advanced Pick

5.1.16.

"All these programs incorrectly recognize Feb. 29, 2000,

as a valid date. I suspect this problem is widespread

and would like to bring it to your attention."

Mark L. Olsen

Director of information services

Ace Parking

San Diego

I spent the wee hours of April 8 / April 9 responding to Computerworld, as follows:

First you persist in calling 2000 the new millennium (Sharon Gaudin's rather thin article 'IBM Succumbs to Millennium Mania') when indeed it is the last year of the 20th Century. You then go on to put both feet in it with a letter titled 'A new twist on year 2000' with a nice, bold, block declaring once and for all that 'There will be no Feb. 29, 2000.'

Never again let it be said that the Chicago paper's infamous 1947 "Dewey Wins" headline stands alone among journalistic stumbles. To digress yet another 50 years or so, "Yes, Maryfran, there really is (going to be) a February 29, 2000, no matter what your little friends at CW or the Encyclopaedia Brittanica say".

I guess my wonderment is several fold:

•How on earth did a blunder like this slip past everyone at CW?

•If indeed Microsoft (Win'95) and IBM/Lotus (1-2-3 v.5) and HP all made such a horrible error as to add a non-date that is only some 1,055 days away, and imbedded it into flagship software, wouldn't such news be worthy of an international "stop the presses" extra front page killer story? Who at CW let such a huge news flash slip to page 34 when exposure would be the stuff that makes Pulitzer prizes!

•Year 2000 problems are on the verge of discrediting the entire computer industry, and quite frankly, I think CW is playing Nero (as a leader who prefers to fiddle while Rome burns).

My industry, my profession, to a great degree my personal integrety is at risk of a devistating loss of credibility. I sincerely look for the computer programmer to soon join the politician and lawyer and used car salesman at the bottom when the 'professional integrety ratings' emerge in the last year of the Century ... that is, in the muddle of year 2000. I hope a spot just below us old programmers is reserved for computer industry journalists.