:Talk:Year 2000 problem
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Time|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=mid|science=yes|science-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Explosives|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}}
}}
{{British English}}
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=120|index=/Archive index}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:Year 2000 problem/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
Opposing view - "fix on failure"
"The contrary view asserts that there were no, or very few, critical problems to begin with. This view also asserts that there would have been only a few minor mistakes and that a "fix on failure" approach would have been the most efficient and cost-effective way to solve these problems as they occurred."
No source or evidence is provided to support this assertion. It is highly controversial. "Fix on failure" would have been disastrous. It would have been ludicrously impractical for large corporations to fix all their business critical applications if they were failing simultaneously. Perhaps even worse, amidst the chaos it would have been impossible to detect serious Y2K errors in systems that were still running. Freddie Threepwood (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)