|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Steven,
I'm not a software developer. But I have a few questions for you...
<snip>
>- I would have wanted the TS5 server direction re: Y2K issues to be
>designed, coded, tested, and significant tests performed BEFORE any work was
>even thought about vis-a-vis a Y2K patch for TS4. Why? Because even if my
>short-term plan is to stay with TS4, I would want that patch to provide an
>easier upgrade path to TS5 should I choose to upgrade to TS5.
Okay, question #1...Why? I mean, if the 5.0 server is completely new and
not just a 32 bit port from the 4.0 16 bit version (according to some
sources, it's very similar to 3.0 UMDS), how can that help in patching the
4.0 version? Bob Brickey has stated here that it should not be no more
difficult than to rewrite the lines of code that deal with the errant 2
digit year scheme in 4.0 server and charting, etc. Help me to understand.
>- I would want the technical resources working the TS4 Y2K issue to be
>among the best Omega resources (i.e., those resources currently working on
>TS5)
>
>In other words, it's because of the technical resource issues involved that
>I would prefer, from a technical point of view, to have TS5 on the market
>first.
Question #2. What technical resources, ie, people? Please elaborate for
the non-software developers (such as I) on this list.
>I'd be very surprised if these two points above were not significant
>elements in Omega's decision to build the TS5 product before producing the
>TS4 Y2K patch. I'd be even more surprised if there weren't several more
>reasons why from a technical viewpoint alone, this general approach made the
>most sense.
>
>For example, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the
>easiest way for Omega to make TS4 Y2K compliant was to wrap the new TS5
>server in a set of different clothes and then write a new api to this server
>from the various user interface portions of the TS4 product. They're not
>going to tell you upfront that this is what they're considering but I bet
>you that this has either already been seriously considered or is still being
>considered. But, then, if I'm right about this, for them to determine the
>best approach to making TS4 Y2K compliant they actually have to have the new
>TS5 server software designed or even completed.
I still do not understand...I'm back to thinking in terms of question #1.
>
>**************
>
>A product of the quality of TS doesn't get produced by mediocre technical
>folks who blindly follow the kind of money-grubbing leaders that the
>Brothers Cruz are made out to be sometimes. I'd bet money that if called on
>to do so, Omega could produce a set of documents in court, written by these
>technical folks when the issue of software development priority was being
>considered, that would demonstrate it (Omega) had taken what it saw as a
>"responsible [technical] approach" to the Y2K issue vis-a-vis its current
>customers. I can't imagine that you'd be able to defeat these kinds of
>technical folks and the kind of documentation they'll arrive with in
>court...
Unless you got a Y2K lawyer...I know of several ex-coders who now have law
degrees and are working on a bunch of similar cases. They're able to sift
through the BS and get to the real deal. It's something that Omega may
have to deal with in the near future.
>Putting pressure on Omega via the media is a completely different matter and
>a good idea. What I think you need to do is to get on CNBC and discuss how
>NOT having a TS4 Y2K solution ACTUALLY does harm to your ability to make a
>living as a trader RIGHT NOW. (In other words, you're not screaming and
>waving your arms merely because of a potential impact next year; instead
>your
>"trading for a living" is RIGHT NOW dependent on having data on those
>outside contract months.)
Similar to what Neil Weintraub suggested in another post...yep, it's a good
idea.
-Tony Haas
|