Comments

• Will

  2009-07-01 23:20:51

  I'm not really very knowledgeable about this subject, but wasn't the London Stock Exchange one of the last few stock exchanges not using Linux? I'm pretty sure the New York Stock Exchange has been running on Red Hat for some time now. How many are still using proprietary software?

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 16:24:10

  They're all using "proprietary software", I assure you. Some of them may be running that software on Linux-based systems, but the software which actually manages stock exchange trades isn't open source.

• David Gerard

  2009-07-02 16:33:50

  It's largely bespoke internal software, which isn't quite the same thing as commercial proprietary software. Though it is jealously guarded as a corporate secret and internal advantage.
  
  That said, open source trading software is coming up in the world.
  
  Linux is universal as it's a cheap Unix running on commodity software.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 17:51:36

  ...open source trading software is coming up in the world.
  
  Oh, really? Where, exactly. The OJTS project--the only such effort of which I'm personally aware--has been moribund for two years or more.
  
  Where exactly is this hotbed of open source stock trading platform projects that I've somehow never heard of...?

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 17:26:26

  If it's not freely available, then it's "proprietary". As Wikipedia (correctly) says, "Proprietary software is computer software which is the legal property of one party."

• David Gerard

  2009-07-02 17:34:04

  Well done using misapplied geek precision to avoid the point. Have a cookie.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 17:39:57

  Actually it's more a case of "creative redefinition" on your part to attempt (and fail) to make a point. No cookie for you, sorry.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-07-01 23:30:13

  Honestly, I am not aware of any stock exchange (other than London's) that relies on Microsoft. it's largely dominated by UNIX and Linux (increasingly the latter).
  
  Bear in mind that a vast amount of the "get the facts" campaign put the cards on the LSE story/reference. The "facts" look like a farce now.
  
  Watch how fast Microsoft's promotional pages will be changed.

• Needs Sunlight

  2009-07-02 11:01:25

  Actually M$ appears to have sent pretendele over to ZDNet to sow chaff in the air.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 17:56:53

  You can't have looked too hard, Roy: here's a link from Microsoft's own site on the Brazilian Stock Exchange. Here's a link to a paper on the Karachi stock exchange.
  
  That took about thirty seconds on Google. And I'm not even a "journalist"!

• twitter

  2009-07-12 17:08:18

  Yes, it's apparent you are not a journalist. You have to dig a little deeper than ZDNet white papers that turn up in 30 seconds on Google to get a reasonable idea of what's going on in the world. Like the "Get the Facts" spam, your articles are all from around 2003 or so, do you think they are accurate today? Dazzle everyone with your research capabilities and all the tidbits you pick up on your world travels.
  
  You might want to start at the Wikipedia pages for Brazil and Pakistani stock markets, though these are subject to astroturf edits by people like you. There you learn that Brazil's market is an impressive 13th largest in the world after a 2008 merger. Pakistan's market, due to reasons beyond ordinary control, suffers downtimes up to four months and could probably get by with M$ systems. They might do better with paper based systems in an environment like that. What you don't see in Wikipedia, sadly, is Brazil's massive lurch towards free software. How long do you think free software friendly Brazil will lag behind market leaders? Money saving changes in such critical applications quickly pay for themselves as the LSE demonstrates through losses from second rate software.

• Will

  2009-07-01 23:34:47

  "now"? When haven't they? ;)

• Yggdrasil

  2009-07-02 15:50:07

  Once again, Roy confuses the "application" with the "operating system". As the article points out, the problem is the software provided by TradElect. The article does not even suggest that the Microsoft OS, HP hardware, or Cisco network equipment is to specifically to blame. Because Roy hates Microsoft with a passion, he blames them out of the three. Because Roy only advocates the use of open source, the reason for the failure is spun as a "proprietary failure".

• sUSE User

  2009-07-03 19:58:30

  LinuxNewsToday says the whole platform:
  
  http://www.linuxnewstoday.org/linux-news-jul-2009-archives/1180-jul-02-2009-linux-news.shtml

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 16:22:05

  Yes, this is Roy misrepresenting the facts once again. The London Stock Exchange, based on this story, is "dumping" the TradElect trading program. There's absolutely nothing in this story to suggest that they're dropping Microsoft, and Roy seems to imagine.
  
  Roy, got any substantiation? Or are you simply being as cagey (and ultimately, as untruthful) with the phrase "the platform" as you were with the statement "I don't know Mark Fink"?

• David Gerard

  2009-07-02 17:37:09

  You're working way too hard to aggressively miss the point: this was one of Microsoft's showcase installations, and the software stack was not up to the task. The precise software running on top is not actually the point at all.
  
  Did you know that people disagreeing with you or ignoring your personal attempts to use favoured definitions of words doesn't constitute lying? Amazing, but true!

• eet

  2009-07-02 17:41:43

  Far from it! David is trying to hold Roy accountable for the nonsense he writes. Roy does always do that, and if it wasn't for people like David, he might get away with it. Roy, on purpose, bends the truth to the point of being falsehood. That is the problem here as in all of Roy's 'news'.

• twitter

  2009-07-12 07:43:25

  The Seattle Post Intelligencer has collected the news on this subject and it all backs up what Roy said.
  
  

  Though the LSE denied the outage was caused by the TradElect system, it is widely believed in London trading circles that the problem was the Windows-based platform, Computer World reported. ... TradElect's ability to process trades, analysts say, hasn't rivaled that of a newer Linux-based system, ChiX, or another called Turquoise.

  
  
  How big a fail is this? The article goes on to say how the next biggest system is able to do about 600 trades per second. LSE? 30 trades per second, when it's not broken and the traders are still in the building. You fail at troll, EET.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-07-02 17:47:37

  Well, if it were as simple as that, that would be one thing. However, what we have hear is an attempt to use words (e.g. "platform", "know") to mean things completely different than their accepted definitions. You're doing the same--there's no indication that there is or was a problem with "the software stack", i.e. the totality of the software being used from drivers to applications.
  
  If LSE drops TradElect, and keep the entirety of the remaining software stack--and there's absolutely nothing in the cited article to suggest they're doing otherwise in any way--what becomes of your "argument" (to be generous) here?
  
  It's completely unclear, wishful thinking on yours and Roy's parts aside, that Microsoft would necessarily be more concerned about this than they would be with someone who decided to use Songbird rather than iTunes on their Vista laptop.

• twitter

  2009-07-04 20:56:01

  It is nice of you to wish that M$ was without network problems but the evidence is stacked against you. Most US stock exchanges run GNU/Linux. They have no problems. LSE uses an expensive M$ stack and has massive problems, including:
  
  

  when network software problems took TradElect offline for a potentially devastating seven hours. At the time, angry traders walked out of the building in protest, unable to conduct business on what would have been one of the best days for the market ...

  
  
  M$'s network stack is notoriously complex and poor. Problems have been reported in all sorts of unrelated applications. What conclusion should any reasonable person draw from this picture? Time will tell how reasonable and well informed the new LSE CEO is. Those who warned against using M$ in the first place can sit back and say, "I told you so."

• David Gerard

  2009-07-04 21:02:30

  @twitter - the ZDnet post linked in that Slashdot article has gone missing ... any idea where it is now? I remember the picture comparison in question ...

• twitter

  2009-07-04 23:32:42

  Internet Archive to the rescue, again. The picture is right here. Abridged text:
  
  

  Windows is inherently harder to secure than Linux. There I said it. The simple truth. Many millions of words have been written and said on this topic. I have a couple of pictures. The basic argument goes like this. In its long evolution, Windows has grown so complicated that it is harder to secure. Well these images make the point very well. Both images are a complete map of the system calls that occur when a web server serves up a single page of html with a single picture. The same page and picture. ... The more system calls, the greater potential for vulnerability, the more effort needed to create secure applications. [Pictures, Apache on Linux, complex but clear, IIS on Windows Server, this is your computer on bad drugs.]

  
  
  The author was Richard Stiennon and his company is IT Harvest. The pictures are worth sharing, so head on over to archive.org before they vanish.