|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Robyn wrote:
> I'd like to try to summarize your thoughts about a Y2K patch
> for SuperCharts 2.1 - because there are a fair number of
> people here who are interested in such a patch.
>
> 1. You're not familiar with the product.
I am familiar with SuperCharts from the perspective users have. In fact, I
know far more about it and its internal workings than most users would.
However, I am not intimately familiar with exact machine language coding
details that would have to be known to create executable code patches.
> 2. You don't know whether it can be fixed...
I know it can be fixed.
> - and - if it can be fixed - how much time it would take
> you to develop a "patch".
More than one patch probably would be required. However, patch code
development would be trivial. The problem is almost entirely with learning
enough about executable code details to be able to implement patches. A
computer would have to be acquired, SuperCharts 2.1 would have to be
installed, a database would have to be installed, testing would have to be
performed to find all the places that need patches, and the exact operation
of those parts of the executable code would have to be studied in intimate
detail.
> Therefore - you don't know what you'd have to charge -
> overall - on a time and materials (like a new computer)
> basis for any patch that would be possible (if indeed -
> one is possible).
The problems can be fixed. There is no doubt about that. I don't know what
it would cost, only because I don't know how long it would take to learn
enough about SuperCharts 2.1 machine language code to do it. However, I
know it probably would cost a lot more than any small group of SuperCharts
users would be willing to pay.
The situation is much different with TS 4, the product I originally said
would be easy to fix, because I already know precisely what the problems are
in TS 4 and how to fix them. I am confident Omega will fix them, because
they will be very easy to fix. Omega would have to be brain-dead not to do
it.
I don't know how easy or difficult SuperCharts 2.1 problems would be to fix.
However, I am not concerned about the difficulty of fixing the problems
once they are known exactly. Fixing the problems can't be very difficult
once exact coding details are known. The problem is almost entirely with
the time that would be required to fully understand every small detail of
the existing executable code in the parts of the program that would have to
be patched. There is no way to accurately estimate how long that would take
, but there is no doubt that lots of time would be required.
> 3. I assume that you're willing to work on a "cost plus"
> basis on projects like this - with no guarantee that the
> project will have a successful conclusion. But I also assume
> that most users aren't willing to pay "cost plus" - especially
> since you can't guarantee that you can produce a workable patch.
> I'm in that category - and I assume most of the people with
> whom I've communicated share my thoughts.
>
> Please correct me if my understanding of your situation is incorrect.
I suppose we would consider doing the work on a "cost plus" basis. However,
we are not looking for work. We have more than we can do. I have no
personal interest in SuperCharts and the project would be technically boring
. Furthermore, I don't think it would be a reasonable venture for
SuperCharts users, because the cost to each user almost certainly would
greatly exceed the value of a working copy of the product.
Omega has SuperCharts source code I don't have and that no one else probably
has unless an employee has stolen a copy. The problems could be fixed much
more easily with access to the source code. Maybe SuperCharts users who
want Version 2.1 fixed should form a group and ask Omega for a price to fix
it on a contract basis. Omega might not be willing to do that for a
reasonable fee, because they want to license their newer software. However,
there would be no harm in asking.
-Bob Brickey
Scientific Approaches
sci@xxxxxxxxxx
|