> To the programming team, this was BIG. I told 'em, "Gimme' 20 minutes."
And some people _still_ wonder why we use R:Base! Regards, Alastair. ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Stephen Wills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:01 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Rbase v. Access > I also used RBase to support Y2K efforts at a Fortune 100 manufacturing > company. > I used it for at least 2 critical functions during that effort. > > Test-scripts for the remediation of the HR system were stored and re-printed > from there. There were some 100,000 employee records in the production > system. > As these were more-or-less "parent" records in the IDMS backend, there were > MANY, > MANY more "child" records associated with each employee record. So, the > initial > load into RBase was, basically, the entire set of data for a $20B company. > (I don't know, sometimes it's fun just to throw out those big numbers.) > > Additionally, I used RBase to illustrate a couple of things related to the > impact > of "date-windowing" using different "pivot" dates/years. RBase lent itself > to this > as it essentially uses date-windowing to set the default century when no > 'CC' portion > of the date is provided by input. At one point in regression testing, the > programming > team came running to my office, telling me, "We have a problem." It seemed > that they > had applied a single pivot year to every date-related entity in the system. > Well, it > turned out that any and all surviving dependents of deceased employees, who > were entitled > to continued receipt of disbursements from their dead spouse's retirement > fund were now > being denied issuance of same. The pivot year had been established as 1940. > Therefore, > any dependent whose date of eligibility (marriage_date, birth_date, etc) was > prior to 1940 > had their CC pivoted to '20' rather than '19'. As such, the system behaved > as one would > expect, it denied benefits to these folks because they were either not yet > married > or they were not yet born. > > To the programming team, this was BIG. I told 'em, "Gimme' 20 minutes." > (It might've > been faster, but I think I had to uncompress some data.) I adjusted RBase's > date > settings to match the system's, developed a short, simple, SELECT...GROUP > BY, run against > these data, and, voila, the pivot year in this case should have been 1920. > > Okay, that's a lot of detail just to say, "I did that Y2K stuff, too." But, > lemme' say > that RBase never burped and the internal I/T audit of the project stated : > > "Having audited several facilities and their Y2K efforts, > this by far is the best example ..." > > I'm proud to have played an important role in that effort and happy to say > that RBase was the only software weapon I had in my arsenal ; it was the > only one I needed. > > Steve in Memphis > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alastair Burr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 2:38 PM > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Rbase v. Access > > > > Over the last 20 years, more or less, I have used R:Base from v2.11 > through > > to v7.1. > > > > For around the first 15 of those years I had a registered copy at my last > > place of work (v2.11-v4.5++ Dos) and for the last 15 years, a bit more > > maybe, I have also had my own personal copy (v3.1? Dos-v7.1 Windows). > > > > Recommending and using R:Base at work is pretty easy - it is, after all, > > generally somebody else's money that you're spending. Buying a copy and > > keeping it up to date just because it's a hobby with my own - taxed! - > money > > is either stupid or some sort of endorsement. > > > > Of course there can be problems, of course improvements can be made... but > > that applies to almost everything. The R:Base engine has never let me > down: > > we did a huge amount of Y2K changes at work using R:Base to alter data > from > > other systems; we proved that a major accounting system package had an > error > > using their data in R:Base; we got ad-hoc reports out in hours with R:Base > > where the main-frame would take days if not weeks - even if somebody could > > write the program! Before the days of the Internet we used to do a monthly > > update of a copy of a database in around 30 countries using floppy disks > > sent by post or courier - don't laugh, it worked well when there was no > > other way. > > > > All things being equal another 20 years is not out of the question. > > > > Regards, > > Alastair. > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "james hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:09 PM > > > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Rbase v. Access > > > > > > > > > > I am finding myself being required to justify the use of Rbase instead > > > > of Access at this Univ. Apparently just saying it's way better, see > for > > > > yourself doesn't cut it. > > > > > > > > I am looking for some help in examples of why Rbase is better and that > > > > is does use a real programming language and a list of major > > > > organizations that are using rbase. I know Razzak is doing work for > the > > > > FBI and believe the US Navy. Others? > > > > > > > > Thanks much. > > > > > > > > > >
