Slashdot Mirror


NYSE Moves to Linux

blitzkrieg3 writes "The New York Times is reporting on how the NYSE group now feels that Linux is 'mature enough' for the New York Stock Exchange. They are using commodity x86 based Hewlett-Packard hardware and Linux in place of their traditional UNIX machines. From NYSE Euronext CIO Steve Rubinow: 'We don't want to be closely aligned with proprietary Unix. No offense to HP-UX, but we feel the same way about [IBM's] AIX, and we feel the same way to some extent about Solaris. Other reasons cited for the switch were increased flexibility and lower cost.'"

25 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but does it run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I one-upped the people that skip reading article summaries and skipped reading the title.

  2. His final comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "If there's one thing the market hates, it's crashes."

  3. Re:Reliability by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so you work with systems that are either poorly maintained or run buggy software. Having worked with all the major flavors of Unix over almost twenty years, I've found the major GNU/Linux distros can be just as reliable. And I've encountered the occasional core-dumping bugs in HPUX, Solaris, AIX that were show stoppers (read patch lists for any of them, *someone* had to be a victim of the bad oopses.) Windows is a desktop system that's been stretched into something it had no business attempting, though maybe server 2003 is good enough for enterprise use.

  4. Re:Not the same as a Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why, what's your stake? So people use desktop Linux at home. I do. Doesn't that make you mad? I love that. My wife runs Linux on her computer, too. My kids do, too. Does that piss you off? I'm glad. Lots of the people I work with use Linux on a home desktop, too. Linux is better than Microsoft in every way. Doesn't that just whip you into a foaming mad frenzy? Lots and lots of people use Linux every day, and they're smug and happy and laughing at you. Are you busting a blood vessel yet? I sure hope so.

  5. Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And who wins? HP of course. Who loses? Sun. Now if they had switched to/from Windows, then it'd be big news. As it is, it's not that big of a deal since Linux is in plenty of mission critical systems. The hospital I used to work at had Linux machines controlling their linear accelerators in radiation oncology.

    NYSE, the Ivory Tower of capitalism, switching to Linux.

    You know who won? Richard Stallman, that's who won. Congratulations dude.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  6. Re:Reliability by alshithead · · Score: 4, Informative

    "In Windows, I had to reboot on almost a weekly basis at least..."

    Just anecdotal experience but the Windows 2000 and 2003 boxes I've administered have been rock solid other than the occasional box which was running a flaky application. It never surprised me to see a random blue screen with Windows NT boxes but a blue screen on a 2000 or 2003 server was always a surprise. Having said that, I'm not sorry at all to see a major, high visibility implementation of Linux. I hope they have much success.

    --
    I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
  7. no fooling. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If there's one thing the market hates, it's crashes."

    No fooling.

    I used to work on Amdhall's unix for their mainframes. Among other things it was used by brokerages to support trading and all the Baby Bells to support data collection for billing.

    If a baby bell's billing system went down all the phone calls dialed, started, or completed while it was down were free. This made downtime cost something like $4 million / hour.

    Brokerage support going down cost far more.

    So imagine a trading system going down (equivalent to all the brokerages going down at the same time...)

    Needless to say, much of the point of mainframes is to keep this from ever happening.

    So the hardware is built so it performs the correct computation despite component failures, radiation-flipped bits, or on-the-fly hardware changes (adding/deleting/resizing peripherals, CPUs memory, switching out failing components), etc. And the software is built to similar standards.

    This can cause problems. Like sizing event counters to stand uptime measured in decades. Or getting non-critical patches installed. (I recall a minor patch to a driver, too small to rate forcing a couple million bux worth of reboot, that had been installed on all the customers' machines to go live at the next reboot. Two years later (last I heard) they were still supporting the bug because some systems hadn't rebooted yet...)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. Re:Reliability by teebob21 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You, sir, have hit the nail on the head. These days, its all about the software on a UNIX-derived OS. Windows is all about just keeping the machine off of life support. I work for a company that uses nearly as many flavors of OS as Kobe Bryant has had sex partners. Oh yeah, sports reference, and this is /. I mean, ...as many OS's as major Slackware releases. (Better?)

    Our digital video controllers run SUSE, our network connectivity monitors are Debian-based, our workstations throughout the company are a mix of Windows 2000, XP Pro, and Vista. Heck, our billing software runs on a Tandem! The project I work on is a collaborative mix of the Tandem billing system, a Unix-derived OS middleware, the Solaris cluster application server, and Windows clients. It's a veritable OS soup. Thankfully, on the software side, it's all developed and supported by a 3rd party vendor. Yet through it all, our biggest headache is the Windows clients with their general operating system mishaps. They die unexpectedly, corrupting the MBR. The application suffers from a DLL error that comes and goes with different revisions of the software, etc. The Tandem and middleware have never gone down, and the Solaris cluster has a required program which springs a memory leak requiring a process restart every 30 days or so. That's all. If we could get a way to put our project into the field on a Linux-based platform, my job would consist of reading Slashdot and answering "how-do-I?" emails, not the current daily firefighting.

    --
    khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
  9. Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by reporter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Although Linux is free, the NYSE did not simply download Linux and install it on some Hewlett-Packard (HP) hardware purchased through Costco. The NYSE purchased a packaged solution from HP (or another solutions bundler like Accenture), and HP will guarantee that this installation of Linux will be reliable to 6 sigma. The contract between the NYSE and HP will likely include some sort of guaranteed uptime.

    If Linux has a bug that diminishes uptime at the NYSE and if the Linux "team" of volunteer programmers does not offer a fix within 24 hours, then HP management will order its commercial slave programmers to develop a solution -- pronto.

    If a you or I encountered a bug in our Linux downloaded from the Web for free, we would have no immediate remedy to our problem. We must wait for the next release, which could take weeks.

    1. Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If a you or I encountered a bug in our Linux downloaded from the Web for free, we would have no immediate remedy to our problem. We must wait for the next release, which could take weeks.


      And this is different from other OSes the average person can buy...how, exactly?

      Chris Mattern
    2. Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by cyranoVR · · Score: 5, Funny

      And this is different from other OSes the average person can buy...how, exactly?


      It could take...months?
    3. Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by hullabalucination · · Score: 5, Informative

      The marketing crap [hp.com] says the London Stock Exchange is the world's fastest, using Microsoft software on HP hardware.

      Yes, it's highly impressive. When it's working.

      http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2203101/lse-technical-glitch

      * * * * *

      I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants.
      —A. Whitney Brown

    4. Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by Ajehals · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have the source code to the software you use then you have the ability to both change support agreements (albeit you still have to find a competent firm to do the work), if as you suggest, get a part open part closed system you are getting rid of most of the benefits of the open source part.

      I agree to a certain extent 'that it would probably be no more or less difficult to switch Linux vendors/supporters than a Commercial Unix variant' in certain cases (any very large complex or heavily customised implementation) but for *most* companies that wouldn't be an issue, mail servers, network services etc.. the core of a companies IT infrastructure would be made up of common and well tested components, supportable by anyone, custom database or web applications would be more difficult to transition to a new support provider, but if they are *yours* and open then at least you *can*.

      As for market share, I'm not sure. It is clear that Linux is replacing Unix in some areas, but it is also making inroads the areas where Microsoft is traditionally dominant.

    5. Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not so much as your date claims: MS launched in September 2005, so the previous uptime wasn't theirs.

    6. Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free by Darby · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Also, people need to remember whose market share is being eaten away by this particular 'win' by Linux: the legacy Unix market is being eroded. Not Microsoft at all.


      That's absolutely true.

      Microsoft would have really liked to have that contract though. Both for the revenue and for the bragging rights.
      So it, indeed, is not eating into Microsoft's market share, but it did slow their growth, however slightly.

  10. Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux by Deanalator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hahaha, you mean GNU/Linux right?

  11. Linux uptime. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well Guys...

    For what it's worth:

    When I went to Iraq, I had a laptop running ubuntu. I setup apache2, php5, and mysql5. We created our own "series of tubes" in our barracks area and I supplied our own intranet website (read: porn server). Oh, and America's Army server.

    This thing ran for several months at a time without a reboot. The only reboots were due to other problems, like when a stray 7.62mm bullet knocked out our generator one time, but as for linux running...this thing ran like a champ. In 11 months of service, it never had a problem.

    Of course, it wasn't under the same kind of load. But my NIC was usually maxed out for 40% of the day.

    For consumer-grade hardware with free and open software, 0% downtime not energy related, I feel that Linux did a fine job. Seriously, 11 months, 3 reboots due to power. Nice.

  12. You forgot an option. by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, those options work, but I think you overlooked one of the most obvious solutions. If you're running a business that depends on a Linux-based solution, and you encounter a bug that seriously degrades your platform's stability, you always have the option of hiring a programmer to develop a patch.

  13. Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (as in beer) by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Very few businesses really care much about the sticker price of an operating system. What many businesses are catching on to is that Linux has little to no vendor lock-in. It goes something like this:

    Develop all your software and systems on one Linux. Then find out you don't like HP? Fine.. take your business to Dell. The distribution they're running on starts to suck rocks? No problem, switch to RHEL. RHEL starts to not meet your needs? Customize your own distribution.

    Not being tying your business to the whims of whatever company you're dealing with is truly powerful. If you ask me, that's the real power of Linux, and open source software. Linux makes operating systems into a true commodity like grain, where switching to another vendor is low cost.

    --
    AccountKiller
  14. Re:Hope the license doesn't give them trouble. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know, if you don't even bother to reformat your article, it really does sound like a cut'n'paste troll. Let's check...

    Well, here's one. Must be a fairly new cut'n'paste troll.

    I'll have some fun with it anyway, and feel free to copy and paste my response anywhere you see this troll:

    (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)

    That really dates this troll, or at least, the troll wants us to think it is that out of touch. Seriously, who uses TokenRing or ext2? (Oh, and you can defrag ext2, if you really, really want to.)

    So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.

    Sucks to be you. Try reading the license.

    It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.

    That's General Public License.

    Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.

    Indeed it does, but only to whoever you distribute binaries to.

    Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    If you're sending free binaries to your competitors, sure. But you'd have to be retarded to do that.

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.

    Absolutely untrue.

    We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution.

    If you're rewriting it anyway, why not give away your hard work? Worked well for id software.

    I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".

    And of course, no mention of exactly how that's more fair, other than this comparison to such a strawman GPL.

    Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

    Except, of course, a top online investment firm kind of proves you wrong there. I'll point to Amazon EC2 and consider the discussion closed.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  15. Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And who wins? HP of course. Who loses? Sun.

    Don't kid yourself. Microsoft is also a competitor to Sun, HP, and the Linux OS. Microsoft would have killed to get the freaking NYSE, if for no other reason that it'd be a feather in their cap.

    As it stands, the NYSE partially running on Linux is quite a major deal, at least to the Big Business Guys who like to follow what other Big Business Guys are doing.

    --
    AccountKiller
  16. Re:Not the same as a Desktop by Ajehals · · Score: 5, Informative
    From a marketing perspective this is very good news, Microsoft ran an advert for a long time after the London Stock Exchange switched various systems to Windows (but not the trading system apparently... correct me if I'm wrong). Of course those adverts don't seem to be around so much anymore, possibly as they have had some problems.

    Anyway if this is a success (and there is no reason it shouldn't be) and since Linux excels on the server (and frankly is perfectly suited to 90% of corporate desktops) this kind of public roll out is a great selling point and a driver for others large and small to do the same, after all little 10 man operations can suddenly point to their two Linux mail servers and proudly tell their clients that they are using the same technology as the NYSE! (Not the same software or the same hardware (and definitely without the SLA's and support) but the same technology....:) ) .

    For those nut bothering to read the links - salient parts are:

    As part of its strategy to win more trading business and new customers, the London Stock Exchange needed a scalable, reliable, high-performance stock exchange ticker plant to replace its earlier system. Roughly 40 per cent of the Exchange's revenues are generated by the sale of real-time information about stock prices. Using the Microsoft® .NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server(TM) 2000 database, the new Infolect® system has been built to achieve unprecedented levels of performance, availability, and business agility. - mainframemigration.org (December 01, 2006) (Emphasis mine)

    Furious traders were left twiddling their thumbs for the last 40 minutes of trading yesterday after the London Stock Exchange's IT system collapsed. .... One trader said: "I've not known this to happen since the start of electronic trading. If they're saying trading is still going on, that's just not true." .... - www.timesonline.co.uk (November 8, 2007)
  17. Re:Reliability by cyclone96 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it is my experience that Linux is not yet reliable for mission critical stuff

    I work for NASA (who coined the term "mission critical") and we think it's ready. The IBM A31p laptops onboard the Space Station were recently switched to Redhat. These are the laptops that command to the core computer system and control the vehicle, not just some random payload.

    Mission Control in Houston is in the process of switching to RHEL based systems, and should be complete sometime next year.

    --
    Worst...sig...ever!
  18. Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not quite. The ideals of capitalism are infinite profit, infinite growth, and maximum self-interest. Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you get that bullshit? The "ideals" of capitalism? Just what is that supposed to mean anyway?

    If anything, the principles of capitalism were described by Adam Smith in An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations where he observed that people do act in their own self-interest -- not that they SHOULD, merely that it is inescapable that they DO -- regardless of what rules society may try to impose, and thus instead of fighting human nature, we should harness it to make the best out of a bad situation.

    Smith was pretty certain that labor and property were both scarce resources and thus the way to get the most benefit for SOCIETY was to let them be privately controlled. He never once made claims to 'infinite profit' or 'infinite growth' - in fact just the opposite where he noted that:

    This produce, how great soever, can never be infinite, but must have certain limits.

    and

    The mercantile capital of Great Britain, though very great, yet not being infinite, ...

    And some dimwit moderated my post as troll. Get a clue.
    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  19. Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Unfortunately, Capitalism in our current society has very little to do with what Adam Smith actually said. There is a similar disconnect between the actions of some/many people who call themselves Christians and the teachings of Jesus. Or the disconnect between what Marx and Ingels said and the modern implementations of Communism.

    From what I've seen of the world, "infinite profit, infinite growth, and maximum self-interest" is a more accurate description of the goals of some/many large corporations than anything Adam Smith said. Unfortunately for all of us, greed in our society is treated as a virtue, not a necessary (or unavoidable) evil. I think this is the heart of problems caused by our so-called Capitalist system.

    I am reminded of Plato's description of the fall of Atlantis:

    For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power.
    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin