Is Microsoft advertizing false material?

Does the sun rise in the east?

Seriously now, this is not the first such incident and this never happens in other markets that run ‘legacy’ systems, including Solaris and GNU/Linux.

Netcraft has just crowned GNU/Linux for uptime (again). More on that later.

And…

What is the cost of missed business? What is the cost of a damaged reputation? Will Microsoft’s “independent” client update the TCO studies for the LSE? Do they know what TCO is?

Is Microsoft advertizing false material?

Not sure if these contain any new info, but I’ll post the links anyway:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9bRidj83NBQ&refer=home
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL01084620080908

No. They do not blame connectivity, they blame the ‘network’, but without indicating the context in which the word is used.

Same words and tactics as used in whitewashing the Sampo Pankki catastrophe.

Sure it’s mincing words, but do not read into it something which is not said.

I have *heard*, but not confirmed, that MS licenses aim to prevent a lot of legal choices. Some of the more bizarre clauses suggest that the customer must back/support MS in court.

If you can manage to get a printed copy of the *all* the licensing agreements relevant to such a heinous and convoluted stack as MS supplies in situations like for LSE, then you might find all kinds of material to prevent acquisition of MS’ imitations of technology.

That is if the licenses and contracts are not under NDA. If that is the case, then that too needs to be brought out into public scrutiny.

“Traders said the exchange was suffering an ‘overloading’ caused partly because the FTSE 100 ended down sharply on Friday so traders who were betting on further falls in the index would have to close their positions.”

So connectivity was just a poor excuse if you ask me.

Is the LSE going to sue any of their suppliers or just take the fallout themselves? Mission critical stuff on .NET? Then again, they deserve whatever they end up with.

Excellent point. Assuming FOSS could find no backer to offer any further guarantees than as stated for Microsoft, I think it would make lots of business sense to really want to have access to the source code. Only you care about your business as much as anyone could. Microsoft, with their many many other large clients certainly isn’t going to call people out of vacation for you, especially if they have little to lose: “there is always the client that mishandled our software”, “they can’t successfully sue”, “they are locked-in and will come back for more”, “they represent a small portion of our business”.

In this particular case, Microsoft will likely work hard to help solve the problem, but for the typical user out there that goes with Microsoft products, expect less than little real help from Microsoft compared to what you could get with source code access and free or paid online sources and a smaller more dedicated service provider.

The bigger problem with going with Microsoft is that you don’t know what kind of business intelligence Microsoft is grabbing from your business. Innocent stats can go very far in giving Microsoft and any partners willing to pay more than you an advantage over you.

I also see so-called malware writers gaining advantages from the holes in Microsoft products that you don’t and can’t know about or fix in a timely manner. With Linux, you can see and fix relevant issues that crop up even before complete failure. You (or those who really want your business, in competition with each other) can manage risks and resources when you have access to the source code of all the software running your business. It’s smart to know.

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=2275

http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/16/network-card-crash-leaves-17-000-stranded-at-lax/

The license (if valid) disclaims both liability and suitability, then the fault for the above can be placed *solely* at the feet of those responsible for letting M$ getting even a toehold in at work.