Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech who wrote (1890)	1/4/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Respond to of 3391

Tech - Is there anyway we can confirm what side of the equation they represent ? I suppose I could try to call Fred Brooks & ask him personally what he meant by the percentages representation... no guarantees, but I'll put it on 'might do' list. you won't be able to keep to your budget. If folks think they'll be sticking to dollar budgets, they're delusional. The only way out of the loop is to turn to the automated factory approach. Jury's still out on this one. From what I've seen over the past 3+ years: - initially there was a rush to outsource the whole deal with "the experts"... big 6, IBM, KEA, CHRZ, CSC, etc. But this romance has slowed since there has been significant sticker shock issues. - there's been a movement to 'do it in-house' Thinking that the experts can make Y2K go away with the swish of a check book is clearly bogus thinking... and clients are proving very slow at learning this. Doing Y2K in-house will be the only option for most shops since the experts will already be booked. But do shops have the in-house talent? Lord only knows. In theory the factory approach should fit well, but always there's the problem with finding the applications & drawing lines around the edges... for certain that's one of the primary things that's tripped up PTUS & CSC. One thing that CSGI might have in it's favor is its claim of doing odd languages... COBOL is a no-brainer by now & besides, that COBOL is probably less than 50% of the problem. Despite what the papers say, COBOL is not 90% of the code base... only reporters & people who live in glass houses believe such nonsense. I do appreciate your viewpoints on this thread. I only wish that others could discuss their views like you. Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to push back & forth on the issues rather than just resorting to flame war tactics. most companies haven't even begun to realize the extent of it. That is the understatement of 1998! - David