M$ Still Confused by Leap Year

Should people who don’t understand Leap Year be in charge of your IT? I don’t think so. I recommend Debian GNU/Linux who seem to have it done right.

M$ lost its cloud today with the February 29 thing. It seems a certificate expired, or something…

M$ has had problems with dates before, sometimes due to making backwards-compatible bugs:

They are brave or foolhardy to be launching a demo today.

see Microsoft’s Azure cloud down and out for 8 hours

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to M$ Still Confused by Leap Year

  1. dougman says:

    A close friend told me his email was down for the day, I instantly knew what the trouble was.

    He told me his IT-dude mentioned something about a certificate that was not updated and had expired. I laughed and told him his geek was lying.

    Microsoft has solved the problem and applied a patch to their systems.
    The new patch is anticipated to keep the service up and stable for least 4 years.

    This points out a serious flaw in the whole idea of cloud reliability by redundancy. You may have a million servers running across multiple countries, but if the distributed software for each virtual server has a bug, every server across the globe is affected. That’s a single point of failure.

  2. oiaohm says:

    Phenom “Backward compatibility” also does not mean making stupidity into file formats.

    The complete idea of including the lotus bug was to reduce work when making format converters. Format converters from IBM, Star and Coral at the time could cope with the known lotus 1-2-3 error yet not have the error in the file format of there own.

    Simply MS new formats are buggy. New format is a chance to draw line in sand and clean out issues that have been in your product for many years.

    Miss those chances you have to keep on support bugs. Those bugs will turn up as errors and defects.

    Suppose MS wants errors to keep users on update tread mil.

  3. Phenom is correct in many cases. Most businesses use IT but do not develop it. Those who do have the size to develop some IT can easily see the advantages of GNU/Linux, particularly with thin clients. M$ taxes thin clients to death. Large businesses can easily see the advantages of grouping all the easy migrations to GNU/Linux. Many businesses use Java and have a lot of users who run just a single application all day long closely related to their job description. Java is easy to migrate.

    Workopolis (Canada) has 701 hits for “Java”.

    Dice (US) has 17K hits for “Java”.

  4. Phenom says:

    Spam still too strict for me. 🙁

  5. Phenom says:

    Pogson, I have only drunk the waters of experience with dealing with business customers for last 15 years or so. I’ve seen how conservatie organizations can be, how hard it is for them to replace their software systems, and how they start only to think about it only and only when their current software falls really short of satisfying company’s goals.

    Backward compatibility and application compatibility is one of the strongest aces MS has in their sleeves. No matter how much you want to negate this point, businesses want it. Period.

    In this particular case, MS implemented something just to make sure existing 1-2-3 files will work properly in Excel. This compatibility with 1-2-3 drove Excel into high acceptance, when Lotus failed to provide a good Windows version of their famous product.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Lot of MS defects track to the stupidity of not putting bugs to bed forever more.

    Linux world a bug is a bug. If you application depends on it and the bug gets fixed stiff.

    Here is something Phenom later Lotus 1-2-3 in there fixed it. Only Lotus files under a particular version number have the bug.

    Since Lotus 1-2-3 could fix it why cannot Microsoft.

  7. Amen. Reading some of the e-mails within M$ in the last 20 years leads me to the conclusion that these guys are truly evil, putting a higher priority on messing with other businesses ahead of running their own business. They did not even have quality of product on the radar until 2002 or so and then produced Vista. Imagine what they and the rest of the world would be doing if M$ had stuck to business instead back in the late 1980s. The world would have been saved $trillions of losses related to malware, re-re-reboots, forced upgrades and premature obsolescence of equipment. Thin clients would have taken the stage a decade earlier in the world of PCs and the whole of IT and the web would be much simpler and more efficient. M$ would not be declining in share as they are with M$ locked in to its own garbage. The digital divide would have ended a decade sooner if M$ had put its money into developing new technology appropriate for emerging economies rather than messing with the competition. M$ would have a prosperous future instead of looking forward to shrinkage while the world continues to grow.

  8. kozmcrae says:

    Phenom is falling back on an old Microsoft tactic for sloughing off its accountabilities; “Everyone else” did it so it’s okay for us to do it.

    Screwing your customers is not okay no matter who is doing it.

  9. Phenom wrote, “This story is actually a good example why MS managed to conquer the market.”

    So, crime/lying/cheating “wins”? Phenom, you have “drunk the Koolaid”. No one wins when pragmatism replaces rational solutions to real problems. Pragmatism of that kind just makes problems bigger, like the “year 2K” problem. When bugs are found, they should be fixed. There’s only one way to do IT and that’s optimally. Anything else is waste and breach of fiduciary responsibility. There can be multiple solutions that are nearly optimal but certainly copying a bug because it exists is not acceptable.

  10. Phenom says:

    From your own source:

    When Lotus 1-2-3 was first released, the program assumed that the year 1900 was a leap year, even though it actually was not a leap year. This made it easier for the program to handle leap years and caused no harm to almost all date calculations in Lotus 1-2-3.

    When Microsoft Multiplan and Microsoft Excel were released, they also assumed that 1900 was a leap year. This assumption allowed Microsoft Multiplan and Microsoft Excel to use the same serial date system used by Lotus 1-2-3 and provide greater compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3. Treating 1900 as a leap year also made it easier for users to move worksheets from one program to the other.

    Here you can read more about that:

    This story is actually a good example why MS managed to conquer the market.

Leave a Reply