|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I for one was not at all upset - the comments were thoughtful and intelligent
(civil too). My first inclination was that there was some merit to having TS/SC5
development well advanced to increase the developers knowledge of what might be
involved in the transition to the next product release before tackling the Y2K
fixes. Having spent a large part of some 30+ years in the computer field leading
large scale systems design and development projects, I am reasonably
knowledgeable about, and comfortable with, short and long term systems planning
although I do not pretend to have the final word.
As I gave the subject more thought however, it seems most prudent to build and
test the Y2K fixes directly to the existing software, thereby minimizing the
scope of change to the installed base used for
day to day trading. We've been told how TS/SC5 is being practically built from
the ground up, including an entirely new server. Thus, by integrating the design
and debugging of the Y2K fix for TS/SC with the next product release, the fix
itself becomes significantly more complex and increased complexity poses
considerable risk to the installed base of software. Far better that the
installed base be fixed with as few changes as possible and leave the complex
stuff including whatever 4 to 5 conversions are required, to the next release
while it remains in the laboratory. Further, I have never seen a development
project which did not slip from planned schedules - thus the Y2K fix is being
conditioned on events which are uncertain as to duration. Not to mention the
fact that Omega's first obligation is to insure that the software it has already
sold is performing as it should - obviously not the case with respect to Y2K.
Even the proposed workarounds are of dubious value since Omega has remained
silent.
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Buss <sbuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: It's time....
>Alot of people are going to be upset with me for writing this note....That's
>ok.
>
>I've been a contract software development consultant for 15 years. I've
>worked almost entirely for Fortune 100 companies on a varied range of
>projects and various technologies. I plan on purchasing TS5 as soon as it's
>available, but if I was going to stay with TS4, here's what I would prefer
>as a TS4 user:
>
>- 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.
>
>- 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.
>
>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.
>
>**************
>
>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...
>
>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.)
>
>Steven Buss
>sbuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Walnut Creek, CA, USA
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: OfficeOfThePresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><OfficeOfThePresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Janette Perez
><Janette.Perez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
><omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dennis Boyle <dennis.boyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:55 PM
>Subject: It's time....
>
>
>>Mr. Cruz:
>>
>>I am a professional trader. I always try to help my fellow trader. I am not
>>known as a basher of Omega products. I own TradeStation 4.0 and Supercharts
>4.0
>>and I owned prior versions of both.
>>
>>It's time for Omega to start treating all of us, your current users, with
>>respect, Mr. Cruz. We want a year 2000 compliant patch on our existing
>product.
>>And we refuse to wait until you have finished using your resources on a new
>>product. We are not going to spend another dime on an Omega product until
>Omega
>>makes our existing products year 2000 compliant. You have insulted all of
>us by
>>telling us you will release a patch after you release a new product. The
>fees
>>from our existing products paid for the research for TradeStation version
>>5...Now at least fix our existing product.
>>
>>And fix it now, Mr. Cruz. We are all actively trading contracts on the
>>exchanges. Fix our products now. Telling us you will release a patch after
>you
>>release TradeStation version 5 is not good enough. Give us a patch now. We
>trade
>>for a living and you are threatening our living. We don't want to sue Omega
>for
>>their lack of responsibility, but we will not spend another dime for your
>>products until we have a version 4 year 2000 patch. And if it takes legal
>action
>>to get you to put your resources where they belong, we will take legal
>action.
>>Enough is enough. Treat us like the good customers we have been and fulfill
>your
>>responsibility. Now.
>>
>>Timothy Morge
>>
>
>
>
>
|