TED, comments on your reply
Reply to question:
#1. Where did you get the idea that they are "weak" in MVS ? Was that something that you were told, or does that conclusion come from something else ?
Reply -"I didn't say they were weak in MVS. I said they were weak in the support of MVS environments. Native MVS should be OK. I arrived at this from the interpretation of body language and lack of eye contact when I mentioned various MVS environmental considerations. Also, lack of support for various IMS and CICS entities (to name just a few)."
+++++++++++++++
You say you arrived at this conclusion from "body language", and lack of "eye contact". I don't know about others, but I would feel more comfortable if this conclusion could be based on something a little bit more concrete.
*
*
*
#4 Could you please specify what others you have seen and where these companies fall in the year 2000 sector. i.e. are they near the upper or lower end of the spectrum?
Reply -" I documented the other companies in a prior post where I hyperlinked to the writeups I did on PTUS, MatriDigm, and VIAS. PTUS and MatriDigm are in the higher-middle, VIAS is in the upper tier. I have also done competitive analysis of companies like CPWR, DDIM, etc. None of them are technological leaps ahead of any of the others. They might use different techniques, but they will arrive at the same or similar answers."
+++++++++++
Where does ConSyGen fit in amongst the companies mentioned above ?
*
*
*
#7. You state that "they push a button, and it automatically finds all occurrences of each date field and converts the definition to be Y2K compliant." Are you aware of any other companies that can "push" a button and then have code converted WITHOUT any programmers touching a single line of code ? If so, please state which ones.
Reply-"All of the 'automated' conversion utilities do that. That's why they exist. What good would it do to build a conversion utility that has to be manually driven? They tools are driven by rules. Those rules are used to determine which action to take on which fields. That's what computers are for. There are some 'conversion assistant' tools that are designed to walk the programmer through the change process (DDIM's SystemVision 2000 for one). It's really nothing more than a bunch of EDIT macros with an ISPF frontend."
+++++++++
So, in other words, if ConSyGen states that they are the only company that they know of to have automated the identification and conversion phases, then they are lying ? If ConSyGen is not telling the truth and there are other companies who have both an automated search engine and a automated conversion, then why do these other companies require hundreds and hundreds of programmers ? What allows ConSyGen to only need 30 people instead of hundreds of people?
Are you also stating that the other companies you mentioned have a process that not one single line of code is converted by a programmer?
*
*
*
8. If CSGI is the only one, or one of the only ones, that can convert code "automatically", then does that give them any kind of advantage over companies who have to hire hundreds and hundreds of programmers to convert code ?
Reply-"No need to answer this. They aren't the only one."
+++++++++++
Could you please list the other vendors, or companies who meet all of the following conditions:
1. Have an automated search engine
2. Have automated the conversion phase
3. In the conversion phase not one line of code is converted by a programmer. Although a programmer may set up the rules for the conversion, the actual conversion is done automatically.
*
*
*
#9. CSGI has always claimed to be a "conversion house", therefore testing is left to the client. What other companies that consider themselves "conversion houses" test the code for the client ?
Reply-"MatriDigm has a step in their process that tests each individual changed line of code to ensure it performs the same as it did prior to the conversion. That doesn't alleviate the need for client testing within the environment, however."
++++++++++++++
Has MatriDigm ever started, finished, and tested a project ? If so, what were the test results ? Other than MD's "claims" no other conversion house, that I know of, tests the clients code. ConSyGen never claimed to do testing anyway.
*
*
*
#10. Isn't it true that during this entire process not one single line of code is converted by a programmer ?
Relpy-"Actually, they're all converted by a programmer. A CSGI programmer. One who defines the rules for each field to be converted. Consider your 'automated' tax return program. It does it all automatically ... after you provide the numbers in the right place. But, it's not "fully automated", otherwise it would collect all the data, do the calculations, sign the form, and mail it for you."
++++++++++++++++
So you consider defining the rules as converting code ? Are there other toolsets that the programmer establishes the rules and then the actual conversion is done automatically ? If so, do any of these companies claim to be able to convert 5 to 10 million lines of code with only 2 to 3 people. If so, which ones ?
I have to ask again, if the CSGI toolset is nothing special, then why do they only need 30 people while others have to hire hundreds and hundreds of programmers ?
*
*
*
11. Are you aware of any other companies that have the combination of a automated search engine and an automated conversion?, if so, could you please list the ones you know.
Reply-"PTUS, MatriDigm, SEEC. Maybe others."
++++++++++++++++
If what you say here is true, then there is nothing special about ConSyGen. What the company has stated is a lie and they have mislead investors by saying that they have a different kind of solution than what was available from other companies.
You are for a FACT stating that PTUS, MatriDigm, and SEEC, all have an automated search engine and a automated conversion, in which not one single line of code is converted by a programmer?
======================
I am very disturbed about some the comments you have made regarding ConSyGen. If what you say is true, then there is no reason for me to own this stock.
The company through its press releases has put out the idea that they have a solution that is quite different than many of their competitors. The company has tried to set itself up as the only one to have automated both the identification and conversion phase.
What you are saying here is that CSGI does not only not have a fully-automated solution, but they don't have anything that is different than MatriDigm, PTUS, and SEEC.
I will try to confirm what you are saying here, and if it is true, I wish you luck in your CSGI investment, because I will be taking my profits here and buying KEA, or another company that has established business core and has proven to have consistent earnings.
|
