|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dans un courrier daté du 19/09/98 17:55:09 , Mark Brown écrit :
<<
I think that lot of people could help me in this sense. For example, by
focusing on real problems to solve and improvements to propose. A
constructive behavior will certainly calm the waters.
Pierre, do you not think that y2000 is a problem?
>>
It will be a problem if it is not solved right in time, i.e in less than 400
days, (say 300 if you want to avoid some heart attacks next year)
It's not a problem because it is not currently solved now as expected.
It's a promise problem, common in the software industry, and Omega does not
make an exception to the rule.
Fortunately, most of the time, the solution announced comes later, but it
comes.
So, no need to waste time and energy for the moment.
<<
Honestly the beta 5.0 is not the same as what we will get.
>>
Certainly.
They add new features to the next beta, and if , after all , this is the way
that Omega feel comotable to work with, why not ?
Only the definitive version must be taken in account.
<<
It is a patched up 4.0, not the rewrite that was promised by Mitch.
>>
It's obviously a rewrite, but as you may know, C++ is a portable code and they
obviously should use some parts of the objects developped for version 4.
No need to start from scratch to rewrite again the same code when it works.
This is far different to simply patching TS4.
Due to the integration of COM technology, multiprocessing (do not ask if it
works, I have not yet tested it), integration of OptionStation features in the
Power Editor and so on, this cannot be made by patching and recompiling to 32
bits.
Should have it be so simple, TS5 would have been available last year without
any doubt.
Let's take TradeLab example: Bob Brickey is a very respectable programmer, if
any, and I know that this is a reference that we may have in common.
Now recall the TradeLab announcements on Bob's web site and see where it is
now.
He also has suffered of unexpected delay , for valid reasons that he has
explained.
So, he may have broken some promises,lied if you want to speak stricto sensu,
but again he is not guilty of that: It's inherent to computer programming and
debugging , where no delay can be reasonably announced.
Unexpected events are beyond the scope of even brillant programmers.
The only solution could be to sell a product when it is ready and to avoid to
speak of it by any mean before the official release.
Who does this in this industry ? None.
Why would you see Omega as an exception to the rule ?
<<
I hardly think that just because it runs, and by the way how are you even
running it?
Offline, sure it runs offline just fine
>>
Of course, I run it offline.
I do not use DBC but ComStock.
Having it running fine offline is better than having nothing running fine.
I'm no here to verify that Omega keeps it promises right in time, and will
certainly not embarass my roof with a second satellite dish only to see DBC
running on TS5, knowing that I will never use DBC.
<<
. How come I haven't heard the protest of why your type of data feed
has been dropped? Are you running the 5.0 Real Time? No I would venture to
say, so how are you able to tout all these features and the functionality?
>>
If you mean that "my datafeed " has been dropped, I fear that you will be
proven wrong in a near future.
This was one of the reason of my trip to USA last year, the others were
discussing TS5 improvement with Bill Cruz after visiting Bill Brower and Bob
Brickey to collect their opinions and add them to mine.
For the record, I had even thought to propose to meet you in Dallas or
Houston, but my plane schedule was too tight.
Next time maybe if you want (but I seldom travel now).
<<
You have to admit that the first beta wasn't (if the one you have now is)
y2000 compliant was it? No it wasn't! by your own admission, it wasn't.
>>
It was not and it was reported in the white papers coming along with the beta.
Y2000 compliance was annouced with beta 8 only.
<<
Probably still is not! I know Omega is still scrambling for a server and
the server that you have on the beta is not the same one that will ship.
>>
Again we will see.
There is a server, and far different of TS4 (I hardly see something common
with TS4 server).
Best thing to do is to ask to a TS5 beta tester using DBC.
It could be easy to know if the TS5 server runs or not.
<<
Why even bother with a beta, when the beta testers are ignored anyway, I
know I've beted for them in the past.
>>
Beta testers are by nature passive actors that reports the bugs and
suggestions to the development staff.
I have been deeply involved with true C++ developers (what I am not) for our
current neurothing product (3 versions) and three others using GA, as well as
with Ward systems to make a TS interface to Neuroshell 2, years ago.
So , I was more than a beta tester as I was partially involved in the
development process.
Useless to say that its always difficult to make understand to a programmer
"what must be done" , what they often understand or translate by "what can be
done".
No exception to this rule within 5 years of work.
I finally get what I intended to get, but seldom at the first trial.
Useless to say that if I have been a single beta tester...my advice may have
less effect.
<<
The right mouse click improvement was
fought for over a year before the knuckle heads at Omega fixed it. I talked
to Bill Cruz myself two weeks after I got the 4.0 beta and so did others.
>>
I remember of that.
<<
In spite of this it took like I said over a year. Given that type of
delayed cerebral cognitive reaction on Bill Cruz's part. How then do you
think we will have time to have a perfect bug free 5.0 running smoothly into
y2000? Not! Your not facing reality if you think all is well on the home
front.
>>
No.
You cannot make linear projection to time development by using different past
examples.
The double click was certainly not so difficult to solve than the time
elapsed between the advice and the implementation.
In this case, it was certainly more a priority choice rather than a real
difficulty problem.
It can take one year to a programmer to put your important suggestion to the
top of the stack (because not so important from the other side) and less to
develop things that you could not imagine the difficulty.
Remember what I explained in a previous post when comparing a programmer with
"God on a computer".
I was not so close of the reality, and it's from real life.
<<
Given the VERY SHORT amount of time left, I suggest rather than
defend 5.0 and the impending release of it. You jump on the band wagon and
help us prod a EASY FAST 4.0 fix out of Cruz.
>>
I will not, and at least not with the method that you propose.
TS5 is now close to completion , and I know that the TS4 patch will come
after.
So, I'll give you a deadline.
If nothing occurs in this sense before 990331, I 'll join your team and will
personally be involved in the TS4 patch battle (or maybe a diplomatic battle
that I prefer, and find more efficient)
Do not forget to recall this to me right in time if the case apply .
<<
Instead all you can think. about and are motivated by is the release of 5.0.
So you can peddle all
your wares to the public, I would probably at least try all your stuff and
my even be a customer of yours.
>>
Maybe.
Things are going in a good sense for us, and I'm very satisfied of the new
product version that will increase also its power with TS5.
Anyway, we only want satisfied customers and I'm confident in the fact that it
will be the case.
No I do not see any reason why you could be an exception.
For your information, and with all of what I have developed, I can make far
more money than by selling some ware.
But I like also to do it, because I know that it can help and 'cause I like
human relationships, better than the one you can have with a broker when
trading a system. One of the main reason why I have put most of my /our tools
for sale.
There are others, but off topic here.
<<
But that is going to have to wait until we
all get some secure feelings around here.
>>
Right.
We are in an in between era with most of products related to technical
analsis.
Thechnology evloves faster than programmers that specialize in this field
(trading) that is a narrow market.
It's easy to develop now very simple and good looking products with RAD tools
It's not so obvious for high level software as TS5 or TradeLab.
<<
I am faced with VAPOR WARE ON ALL HOME FRONTS (except Meta Stock which looks
good).
>>
I cannot say different.
This year is THE Vaporware year.
Too much has been said on what will be developed.
For the moment, only TS5 is in public beta phase.
I disagree for Metastock that is a low level software due to the programming
language used, and runs only on DBC.
Unless they have extended it, but I cannot see how.
<<
I have been so paranoid to the y2000 problem now looking like a reality that
I have undertook my own
software project.
>>
Key point and understandable.
I have the good habit to live with what exists and develop what I can as
additional tool to my modest level
If I reach the limits of what is feasible, I wait the next version of the
platform, knowing that the platfor developer will be fater than myself to
restart from scratch.
I have the experience of this 8 years ago when I started daytrading by
building an intraday system through an adaptation of an existing daily
software, that has been working fine until the datafeed provider collapsed.
1.5 years of work gone in seconds. Neve again. Never for me.
Fortunately, I had planned to switch to TS2 as soon as the Comstock interface
was ready, so I have not lost too much time to find a replacement solution.
<<
Why dont you stop and think what will you say to us all this time next year?
Her is what you were saying to defend Omega 2 years
ago..if you need a refresher..
http://www.intrepid.com/~gary/omega-list/3491.html
>>
Hmm... 2 years only ?
I need a refresher, and 'll see this message later .
I'll reply only if I have said stupidities ( remains possible).
There are few chances that I continue to say the same next year.
<<
Do not worry, I hate nobody, (self snip)
-Pierre Orphelin.
<<
Yes, I even respect your right to be ignorant.
But I'll not fight to liberate you again like my father did way back.
>>
Sorry, my father all and my uncles were war prisonners in Germany.
We will not restart this old historical discussion on Lafayette and the like.
Things would be so simple if a nationality was the same as a character...
<<
So choose your allies carefully this time around. I would remind you that
communist are
communist and they do flock together.. Cuba - France no difference. Not to
discriminate or put you or Bill Cruz down, its just a fact I understand your
thinking and how wrong it is..and if you think I will trust a man who thinks
like you and Bill and Joe do well I have news for you. Omega has lied in
the past and I have no reason to think otherwise now.
>>
Personal thinking.
This is your right.
<<
Still your friend, but stay over there OK! And is it not a communist tactic
to keep the users
of Omega products in France in the dark and unknowledgeable as you have
admitted?
>>
Euh...Not exactly a communist tactic.
Only a tactic to avoid me to spend more of my time with the french users that
there was something wrong on what they have read on Omega-List.
If I needed to spend so much time with my french customers that I spend here,
I'll really fall into vaporware myself.
I'm not a masochist, that's all.
<<
If you look in the mirror do you see the likeness to Bill Cruz?
>>
Ah ! At last a true compliment for ending!
Thanks!
If you come someday to France, please let me know and I'll be happy to meet
you (I'm serious).
I could even present you to some french communists at a respectable safe
distance.
Since the USSR failure, they are very sad and disoriented, in way of
extinction (around 8%) and are only maybe dangerous to their own liver, due
to some pastis addiction.
Sincerely,
Pierre Orphelin.
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <omega-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (rly-ya02.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.194])
by air-ya05.mx.aol.com (v50.5) with SMTP; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:55:08 -0400
Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48])
by r >>
|