Y2K and government IT (was RE: [plug] Linux isn't there yet)

[Matt Bruce]

Kevin Shackleton wrote:

>Our network admin officer did point out that as far as corporations are
>concerned, Y2K is currently everything.  If you can't get an assurance 
>from the vendor that the software is Y2K compliant, no-one in a 
>corporate environment will use it, no matter how you personally might 
>value the assurance.  He said he was unable to find a Samba Y2K 
>assurance and unable to get a Linux assurance.

Something of interest on this particular side topic: _Apparently_ no
government department is permitted to buy any IT product from July 1, 1999
until the year is out. I suppose the plan is to hold their breaths to see if
their Y2K solutions actually work. I'm not sure if this is limited to
hardware and/or software.

Assurances or not, you may find that the pro-Linux (or pro-anything, for
that matter) will sit in stasis until the start of next year. It'll certain
make life difficult for those IT&T companies who have a large slice of, or
dependency on, the government market.

While this won't directly effect private enterprise -- it may change the way
things happen. Especially with those companies who watch what government
departments so, then implement those particular solutions that actually
work. Kind of like Australia and all technology (eg. US with NTSC video and
AMPS mobile, versus PAL video and GSM mobile).

If the restriction includes software, Microsoft are just going to looooove
the fact that Office2000 and Windows2000, due for release in the second half
of the year, will be ignored by government for up to 6 months. I wonder if
they'll try to make it a litigation issue? ;)

Kevin, you're in the AgDept -- have you heard anything on this matter? And
is this a national policy, or just for the WA government?

Cya,

-- 
Matt Bruce
Network Engineer
Network Services, AlphaWest

"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."