Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

London Stock Exchange Finishes Switch To Linux

Posted by Soulskill on from the takes-a-while-to-put-on-a-good-tux dept.

DMandPenfold writes "The London Stock Exchange has successfully set into live trading a new matching engine based on Novell SUSE Linux technology, following successful last-step setup procedures on Saturday. The move has been billed as one of the LSE's most significant technological developments since the increasing prevalence of electronic trading led to the closure of the traditional exchange floor in 1986. LSE chief executive Xavier Rolet has insisted that the exchange, once a monopoly, will deliver record speed and stable trading in order to fight back against the fast erosion of its dominant marketshare by specialist electronic rivals."

74 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Should it be...? by c0lo · · Score: 2

    based on Novell SUSE Linux technology

    Should it be Attachmate (err... Microsoft...?) Linux Technology already?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:Should it be...? by nicholas22 · · Score: 2

      First of all, the link you provided leads to an opinion article. 'Nuff said.

      Even if Microsoft bought some rights from Novell via the Attachmate deal, the current stack is *not* Microsoft tech. The Accenture/MS solution (TradElec) was binned as it was problematic, it crashed for a whole day and it never reached its performance targets (using Server 2003 and SQL 2000). The CEO who had brought it in was apparently fired.

  2. London Linux by RooftopActivity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean the prompt will be a GBP (£) sign instead of a dollar ($) ?

    1. Re:London Linux by ggeens · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does this mean the prompt will be a GBP (£) sign instead of a dollar ($) ?

      No, but the root prompt will be £ instead of #.

      --
      WWTTD?
    2. Re:London Linux by nOw2 · · Score: 2

      Ha, talk about mental gears clicking into place. I'd grown so use to seeing the dollar sign as a prompt I'd completely separated it from the currency in my mind, as if there were two different symbols.

    3. Re:London Linux by mehemiah · · Score: 2

      I WANT that prompt ... I'm doing it.

    4. Re:London Linux by Linker3000 · · Score: 2

      Money is the root.....

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
  3. the problem is algorithmic trading... by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the exchange, once a monopoly, will deliver record speed and stable trading in order to fight back against the fast erosion of its dominant marketshare by specialist electronic rivals

    The issue facing markets isn't that. It's algorithmic trading:

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Algorithmic_trading#Issues_and_developments

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:the problem is algorithmic trading... by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think there needs to be exactly 1 problem?

    2. Re:the problem is algorithmic trading... by Mithur · · Score: 1

      Even so... Really someone thinks that changing to linux in LSE will make a fairest world.. c'mon! Now we can say that linux also helps to starve the world and concentrate wealth with the commodities bubble...

    3. Re:the problem is algorithmic trading... by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Funny

      The is only one problem: entropy, leading to the eventual heat death of the universe.

    4. Re:the problem is algorithmic trading... by dintech · · Score: 2

      The issue facing markets isn't that. It's algorithmic trading

      You couldn't be more wrong. The absolutely opposite is true. Algorithmic trading is exactly what the exchanges want and here's why:

      Increased trading means increased fees. Exchanges charge a fee for each and every order. MTFs such as Chi-X and Turquoise grabbed market share by having a clever pricing structure based on whether your order is sitting on the order book and filled (passive) or your order is immediately filled against something already at the top of the order book (aggresive). The MTFs actually reimbursed fees if you are passive and charged you less that the LSE in any case for being aggressive. This attracted huge amounts of liquidity from the primaries and encouraged market making behaviour. Throw in that they often had better technology since it was all brand new. This was all circa 2007.

      For some reason, whenever a subject about trading comes up on Slashdot, some of you love to find a way to fit in some algo bashing. Likely the same people that mindlessly bash Obama irrespective of the topic. Wouldn't you be happier over at 911truth?

    5. Re:the problem is algorithmic trading... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The is only one problem: entropy, leading to the eventual heat death of the universe.

      Yes, that sort of puts everything in perspective. If you're immortal.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:the problem is algorithmic trading... by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Dick Clark has been complaining about it since the original new year's eve.

  4. Impending Merger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This likely means that the Toronto Stock exchange will soon be using Linux as well, if they aren't already.

    1. Re:Impending Merger by dolmen.fr · · Score: 3, Informative

      The trading engine of the Paris stock exchange (previously Euronext, now NYSE-Euronext) is already on Red Hat Linux since 2006.

  5. YES!!!! :) by youn · · Score: 2

    I know it's not my most sophisticated comment, but I like open source so I am happy :)

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    1. Re:YES!!!! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who said it will be open source? It can be based on Linux, and use proprietary software.

    2. Re:YES!!!! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can promise you what's installed there is far from open source.

    3. Re:YES!!!! :) by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I know it's not my most sophisticated comment, but I like open source so I am happy :)

      The OS sitting at the bottom of the software stack is open source. The rest isn't. I imagine Linux is attractive because it supports a wider array of hardware than Windows would especially for a system which must guarantee low latency, high throughput.

    4. Re:YES!!!! :) by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Doubt it. It's not like you're going to cobble together the systems running a stock exchange from whatever you could find leftover in the warehouse.

      Infinitely more likely that there's only a handful of software development houses with the expertise to develop stock exchange systems of this sort of size. (Which makes sense, as there's only a handful of big stock exchanges). Which means there's only a handful of companies that are going to be taken seriously if they bid for the contract.

      Assuming there's only, say, three such development companies, only one of them provides a product that runs under Windows and that one's being turfed out anyhow, it's more-or-less inevitable the replacement wouldn't run under Windows.

    5. Re:YES!!!! :) by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I didn't say cobble together. What I meant is Linux runs on big iron, it runs on PC architectures, it runs on racks. Multiple architectures, multiple roles, same OS. It makes it easier to put the system together when everything is running the same OS. I imagine that a system like a stock exchange would have embedded systems with honking amounts of memory for low latency streaming / quotes and large mainframe backends for recording trades. All tied together with the fastest network / backbone you could lay your hands on.

      My understanding is the previous system was .NET over windows which raises large question marks over performance (e.g. unexpected garbage collections) and the sort of hardware that it could be run on.

    6. Re:YES!!!! :) by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and then another 3 years hiring somebody new and letting them rewrite it because your homebrew hobbyists who you thought would save you money low-balled the project because "LOL HOW HRD CUD IT B RLY?"

      Nothing happens in the financial services industry in "about 6 months." Your project estimate reads like a PHB asserting, "I don't understand this, so I'll assume it's trivial, and can be done by half a dozen guys in half a dozen months."

    7. Re:YES!!!! :) by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Actually, these types of things are usually in house. If there ever was a case for non-off-the-shelf software, a SE booking & matching engine is it. Most of the developers will be inhouse. The reason to use Linux is most likely that you can strip out all non-essentials. A path that an order takes from external interface to execution can be seriously streamlined with little intereferance from the OS. Imagine having fat kernels like Windows in the interfaces/perimeters and slim kernels almost akin to embedded systems within the centralized engine(s) itself. Inside and outside the system you don't care about security, but on the perimeter, you setup some big bouncers. There are only two platforms that provide this capability & flexibility at a competitive scale while retaining a common programming interface. BSD and Linux. Linux has a better user side support and there are more programmers for it in the overall ecosystem. BSD may have better security, but once inside the system... who cares.

      There is also the aspect of scalability; bringing on and tearing down virtual/physical machines as needed. A thin Linux/BSD/embedded solution flows more linearly and smoothly with demand than say full blown Windows/Redhat ES. With a standardized OS/programming interface, you can break down processes to individual tasks quite efficiently. This allows you to identify bottlenecks in the process and reenforce them with additional parallel processes/machines when needed to maximize throughput. Monolithic systems just don't do this well without huge upfront resource investments and increasing power on non-bottlenecks causing waste.

    8. Re:YES!!!! :) by Orne · · Score: 1

      Larry Ellison of Oracle once told Netscape's board that his cat could write a web browser. Microsoft popped out Internet Explorer later that year.

    9. Re:YES!!!! :) by Americano · · Score: 1

      I'd make three comments in response:
      1) MSIE 1 was started, by the accounts I can find, in mid-to-late 1994, and released in August 1995. So a year+ of development.
      2) MSIE 1 was significantly simpler than a high-volume, high-availability critical trade processing system which handles hundreds of thousands of trades each day;
      3) IE largely succeeded over time on the back of Microsoft's anticompetitive practices, and THEN would have laid in a corner neglected if Firefox hadn't come along to shock them out of their complacency and force them to begin supporting newer web standards.

      IE is not a good example for showing that you can write highly complex, high scalable, fault tolerant/highly available trading systems with "half a dozen coders and 6 months." In fact, its development history shows that it will generally require a significantly longer timeframe to accomplish anything of note.

    10. Re:YES!!!! :) by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      My understanding is the previous system was .NET over windows which raises large question marks over performance (e.g. unexpected garbage collections)

      It seems that the new system is running on Java, though, which is hardly an improvement in hard real-time department.

    11. Re:YES!!!! :) by DrXym · · Score: 1
      It seems that the new system is running on Java, though, which is hardly an improvement in hard real-time department.

      Well there are JVMs implemented in hardware and JVMs with real time RTSJ support (e.g. Websphere Realtime. I suppose it's also possible that some parts of the system are Java and some aren't and I wouldn't really know what the LSE does without looking.

      I know when I worked for a financial house that it was a mix of code. C++ / .NET represented the thick client code. Java represented the web UI and middleware, in the back you might have mainframe views all tied together with b2b XML or webservices. So when you filled a trade ticket you might do it through C++ or Java, which would be sent as XML to middleware which would dump it in a mainframe view. Later on you might get a acknowledgement of the trade through a stream which would also supply streaming quote data and other realtime info.

      Much of the infrastructure that did realtime quotes and research functionality for the consumer facing services was actually perl scripts running against a module in a web server. Sounds weird but the module kicked off a bunch of slave threads and a pile of shared memory and basically listened to a streaming service. The perl script was precompiled so it could be invoked rapidly and instantly spew out XML containing the latest quote data.

      Yes it was messy but indicative of an organic growing system.

      In summary trading systems are not easy. But moving to an open source OS at least opens up the choices you have for hardware and whatnot. What you run over the top is obviously going to have it's own performance impacts so the OS alone is not the only factor.

  6. ACN FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And so ends one more of an increasingly long line of Accenture / MSFT snafus.

    1. Re:ACN FTW by mangu · · Score: 2

      And so ends one more of an increasingly long line of Accenture / MSFT snafus.

      At $40 million / snafu they couldn't care less. Now let's see the people at LSE who proposed the Accenture / MSFT solution. Will they be fired? Will the $40 million be discounted from their bonuses? I doubt it. Because they are probably working at another victim by now. Where will the next snafu be? Stay tuned.

    2. Re:ACN FTW by nicholas22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The CEO who brought in the TradElec joint Accenture / Microsoft solution has been fired. As for the TradElec platform itself, it was binned. The main rival of TradElec was selected. I'd call this a major SNAFU. Where are the self-indulgent comments from MCSEs that 'choosing Microsoft never got anyone fired' now?

    3. Re:ACN FTW by Phantom+Gremlin · · Score: 1

      Back in the old days when Pud ran FuckedCompany.com, he would love to post stories about Accenture. He'd always say: Accenture (pronounced ass-enter).

  7. Re:The switchover came to a grinding halt when... by ebuck · · Score: 1

    The only drivers that were missing were the ones that corresponded to my portfolio.

  8. Re:Novell? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

    Is Novell SUSE Linux good?

    I liked old SUSE, it was one of the first distro flavors
    that I preferred over the stodgy (at that time) other
    players. Haven't tried newest.

    My old job uses OpenSUSE which I was pretty much
    impressed with. (not the distro, the fact that my company
    used it). What was presented was a locked down environ
    that I didn't get to see too much of, til things went bad.
    At prompt... everything was pretty much like you'd expect.

    So, did you just want to know if the *dm is pretty? =)
    cause the kernel and command set are relatively similar
    to everything else out there.

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  9. Re:Novell? by miffo.swe · · Score: 2

    Novell SUSE Linux is pretty good as long as you think before you do stuff. Its easier to get into dependency hell than with RedHat or Debian/Ubuntu but other than that its very stable and nice. Personally i prefer Debian but i do manage a couple of SUSE machines taking serious loads day and night on a slew of different serivces and they have been working flawlessly without any problems at all.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  10. Even Higher Speed! by Nursie · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because clearly, ever more HFT is exactly what everyone needs!

    1. Re:Even Higher Speed! by JanneM · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because clearly, ever more HFT is exactly what everyone needs!

      If you are an automated trader then you do need any speed you can get. If you aren't - well, you probably don't have any business being on the stock exchange any more. A bit more or less speed is not going to make any difference; you're hopelessly outgunned either way.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but all the low-latency trading and algorithmic competition in the world isn't really going to change the fact that I can sit here with delayed stock quotes, look at a company's financial statements, look at the company's P/E ratio and potential for growth and put a bid in at a price of my choosing.

    3. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Nursie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It sucks money out of the stock market.

      Fans of it will say it provides 'increased liquidity'.

      Me, I say, it sucks monkey out of the stock market. If it didn't the HFT people wouldn't bother doing it. The money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other investors. If it *doesn't* come from somewhere then creating it means there's more money and it comes from everyone via inflation.

      That's my take. May be wrong, may be dense, but that's my take. Me, I'd scale back the whole thing massively because I still haven't had anyone explain adequately to me how, after they've gone public, the company's stock market valuation matters (to the company) for anything at all, except for perhaps their ability to rack up debt.

    4. Re:Even Higher Speed! by micheas · · Score: 3, Informative

      "increased liquidity" has a cost.

      If you want to buy now, or sell now, instead of spending a few days shopping for a willing partner on the other side of the trade you won't get as good of a price. But you also have the reduced risk of not spending a few days trying to unload your stock.

      The one thing that you will notice is that with the high frequency traders the spread is now very small, but the volitility is much higher, so in some ways this is a reaction to discount brokerages and the decimalization of stock prices, as the fees are not in the spread but in the volatility. I don't know which is more profitable to the house, but the reduced spread and the greatly reduced commissions had to be made up for someway. Banks are more profitable now, but there are many fewer banks, so direct comparisons with thirty years ago are not possible without correcting for industry consolidation.

      An example of the cost of liquidity is that, while exchanges are liquid, someone selling five to ten percent of a company in the open market in a few minutes can easily erase more than half of the companies market capitalization. But the stock is sold and the books are closed.

      One difference between specialists and high frequency traders is that specialists have to be the buyer and seller of last resort, while HFT's have no obligation to make a losing trade.

      I have not looked at the math behind technical trading recently, but in the nineties there were several papers published that suggested that technical trends could only see about 15 minutes into the future, and the predictive value more than five minutes into the future was murky, but not useless.

      As far as your question of how a companies market capitalization matters to the company, it depends on the company. Some companies carry a large number of authorized shares on the balance sheet, but do have not issued them. The company can give bonuses as stock options which if the options are deep in the money, the investors are essentially paying a substantial percentage of employee compensation, instead of the company paying it. A high market capitalization does not guarantee that people will loan you money, but it does tend to lower your interest rate, and allow you to issue really long term debt. (Disney and Coke issued 100 year bonds, Canadian Pacific issued 1000 year bonds.) One other thing that companies can do with an over inflated market cap is buy things with the stock, see aol buying time warner as a famous example of that. I am sure that there are uses that I am forgetting at the moment. But I hope that is somewhat illuminating.

      --
      Work bio at MMWD
    5. Re:Even Higher Speed! by JanneM · · Score: 1

      You can. And as long as you treat the stock market as a longer-term investment - a place to park your money - the HFT activity isn't going to matter to you. Buy a portfolio or shares in a couple of index funds, then revisit your holdings oh, once a year or so. No problem. In a ten or twenty year time-frame you'll have done much better than the mattress or a bank account, and likely be ahead of bondholders.

      But trying to play the stock market - to trade your way to wealth - is a losers game today if you're an individual investor without the resources and technical know-how to keep up with other automated traders.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    6. Re:Even Higher Speed! by mangu · · Score: 2

      I still haven't had anyone explain adequately to me how, after they've gone public, the company's stock market valuation matters (to the company) for anything at all, except for perhaps their ability to rack up debt.

      If the company's stock is highly valued they can finance growth by selling shares. Otherwise they would have to "rack up debt" in order to grow.

    7. Re:Even Higher Speed! by jimicus · · Score: 1

      If it's in an index-linked fund there's a good chance you'll wind up beating automated traders. 80% of the things that try to beat the market average fail, sometimes spectacularly.

    8. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      LOL. over the last decade or so, funds have (in general) been a great way to make next to no money at all. The dot-com burst and then the "crisis" we're apparently still recovering from.

    9. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Americano · · Score: 1

      Looks like somebody doesn't know about dollar cost averaging and long term investment in a diversified portfolio.

    10. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      One social benefit of HFT is putting day traders back to real work.

    11. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, but then the dollar is meaningless to me as I don't live in the US.

      And you can diversify as much as you like, roughly every ten years (it seems) everything takes a major dive for a year or two.

    12. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Americano · · Score: 1

      Pound cost averaging? Unit cost averaging? Cost average effect? Any of those ring a bell? They all (along with Dollar cost averaging) describe the same thing.

      And "things taking a dive" is exactly *why* you diversify - across sectors, across regions, and across instruments, and across company sizes. In laymen's terms, this avoids "putting all your eggs in one basket." Some sectors of the economy hold up better in downturns than others; Some instruments hold up better than others; some regions hold up better or recover faster; some types of companies are better poised to take advantage of downturns and the inevitable recoveries that follow them. Spreading your money out helps dampen the impact of big dives on your portfolio.

      Investing "wisely" doesn't take lots of specialized knowledge or time. Given that this money is supposed to support you for 20+ years in your retirement, spending a few weeks in your 20's and 30's understanding how to diversify, and then spending a few hours each quarter reviewing your current allocations and shifting money to keep things balanced is *not* a lot of time required. You can even hire a fee-based financial planner to do it for you.

      If you're properly diversified, and sticking with an investment plan, then even when the market turns down, you will generally:
      a) Not suffer as badly as the idiots who sink all their money into their company's stock purchase plan;
      b) Not suffer as badly as the fools who see the numbers drop and panic, selling everything and locking in their losses.

      If you consider investment to be nothing more than gambling, you will never succeed at it. If you understand a few basic principles and stick to a plan, you can do quite well, even in the inevitable down cycles.

    13. Re:Even Higher Speed! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Looks like somebody doesn't know about dollar cost averaging and long term investment in a diversified portfolio.

      Fuck me, Oscar Wilde is alive and well and posting on slashdot.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Even Higher Speed! by m50d · · Score: 1

      Me, I say, it sucks monkey out of the stock market. If it didn't the HFT people wouldn't bother doing it. The money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other investors. If it *doesn't* come from somewhere then creating it means there's more money and it comes from everyone via inflation.

      The whole point of the stock market is it's not a zero-sum game - the companies you invest in are creating wealth (by building a better mousetrap, from materials and labour that are worth less than the finished product), which goes to their owners, i.e. the stockholders.

      Now, you're right in that the money that HFT guys make comes in the immediate from other investors. So flip it around: if all they're doing is creaming off profit, why would anyone ever buy from them or sell to them. Answer: they give you the best prices, the narrowest spreads. That's the service they offer, and that makes things better for everyone else in the market - that's what we mean by providing liquidity.

      Me, I'd scale back the whole thing massively because I still haven't had anyone explain adequately to me how, after they've gone public, the company's stock market valuation matters (to the company) for anything at all

      The stock price isn't (primarily) for company whose stock it is. The stock price is for the benefit of investors who want to buy/sell it. Having a liquid stock market, with stock prices that go up, encourages those with money to invest it in enterprises which create wealth and benefit society, rather than sitting on it. This is all basic stuff.

      --
      I am trolling
    15. Re:Even Higher Speed! by Americano · · Score: 1

      I'll assume you're aware that dollar cost averaging and diversifying a portfolio for long term gains are accepted (and proven) methods for investing that greatly eliminate the volatility of your portfolio in what is, essentially, a cyclical market. Investments over the last decade have absolutely made money if you spent a few days learning how to invest, and then a few hours each quarter balancing your portfolio to match your plan.

      The stock market is not a "this week, this month, this quarter" endeavor. If you want to make money, worrying about a downturn this year is stupid. If you're so close to retirement that you can't afford to ride out a downturn, then your money should be in safer investments - bonds, money market mutuals, or hell, even CDs and savings accounts if you're truly paranoid. If you're not that close to needing the money to fund retirement, then you keep investing in well-run low-cost mutual funds and make sure that your portfolio is well-diversified, EVEN during the passing downturns, because the overall trend of the market is up - it always has been, and always will be, barring some sort of extinction-style event which leaves entire swaths of the planet uninhabitable and barren.

      So, since I've generously assumed you're aware of these basic facts of investing and financial markets, care to explain the joke?

    16. Re:Even Higher Speed! by m50d · · Score: 1

      Stock trading is a zero sum game.

      No it isn't; the total value in the system changes over time - the dow jones or whatever tends, in the long term, to rise.

      For every buyer there is a seller, for every winner, there must be a loser.

      No; mutually profitable trades can be made when something is worth more to the buyer than it is to the seller. That's the fundamental basis of capitalism.

      --
      I am trolling
  11. one problem by louic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is exactly one problem: greedy people

    1. Re:one problem by InterGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blaming an economic collapses on greed is like blaming a bridge collapse on gravity. Both are always there, you design your system around them.

    2. Re:one problem by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blaming an economic collapses on greed is like blaming a bridge collapse on gravity. Both are always there, you design your system around them.

      Yes, and part of your system is not to encourage the greediest fuckers so much, and certainly not to let them escape oversight until it all goes tits up.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:one problem by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      So, you essentially confirm what he said, you just offer advise how to deal with it. Greedy people are the problem.

      To go into your analogy: the purpose of the bridge is to allow the economy to grow and be more efficient, not to provide some very smart people with an implement that stores a huge amount of potential energy due to its intended position in the gravitational field of planet Earth. Protect the bridge.

      The market is there to provide companies with capital, so that the economy can grow. Protect it.

  12. get the fact by DUdsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't this the MS get the fact showcase as to how much better ms.net and sql server were compared to linux? Before the system came crashing down and latency became an issue?

    1. Re:get the fact by David+Off · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it was one of them. I worked on another Reuters Intelligent Advisor which ran like a 3 legged dog, a very expensive dog, until someone did the decent thing and shot it through the head.

      I don't think RIA's expensive failure can be wholly blamed on .net. I think the technical team deceived management and probably themselves about what they could do. They had drunk the SOA/Web Services kool aid and the architecture was basically wrong. I suspect a number of devs saw the project as resume keyword fodder.

    2. Re:get the fact by miffo.swe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Still, Microsoft was heavily involved on every levels of the project. If Microsoft cant make .net / MSSQL work and design it right, who can?

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    3. Re:get the fact by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Hoffa.

    4. Re:get the fact by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Who from Microsoft? Are you talking about the intern that graduated college 6 months ago and got assigned the project, or are we talking about someone who actually knows what they are doing? You talk as if suddenly Microsoft turned the entire company and made making that project work their #1 priority, which isn't nearly the case.

      I can have a team write a similar version on linux and (pick your language) that does the same thing, only worse with more bugs and slower, as well. It's really not that hard.

    5. Re:get the fact by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I think its safe to assume that MS are NOT going to put a trainee on a project that involves one of the worlds major stock exchanges that would be a major showcase for their technology.

    6. Re:get the fact by tokul · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft cant make .net / MSSQL work and design it right, who can?

      There is one person, but God does not code in C#. She prefers Assembler.

  13. Highly Reliable Times by nOw2 · · Score: 1

    I know of a newspaper that won't be publishing this story...

  14. Re:specialists have to be ....last resort by Americano · · Score: 1

    If you're a market maker - who may have a legal & contractual obligation to keep offering trades - yes, you do stay in the market until the trading curbs halt a complete meltdown if things are headed south.

  15. Stable by insistence? by seniorcoder · · Score: 1

    >>LSE chief executive Xavier Rolet has insisted that the exchange, once a monopoly, will deliver record speed and stable trading
    I'm not sure, even if a senior manager insists on stability, that it is guaranteed to happen. What he could do is to insist that, if any instability occurs in the new system, the workforce positions will also become unstable.

  16. Re:Novell? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    IMO the big things with a linux distro are

    1: what is their release frequency and security update policy like? fast releases with little overlap mean a lot of time spent upgrading systems. Slow releases mean you run into problems with application software depending on stuff that is newer than your distro supplies.
    2: what is their QA like? too long and some people complain it's old before it's even released. Too short and you get a buggy release that breaks in a lot of configurations.
    3: what is their package management like (both the software but also the archives it backs on to)? how easy is it to install stuff, remove stuff, upgrade to the next release etc. Do you often have to resort to unofficial package archives or building from source (see also point 1)
    4: do they set up sane defaults when you install stuff or do they expect you to work everything out from scratch
    5: do they provide tools to help you with configuration and if so do they stomp over existing manual configuration or try and work with it as nicely as possible?

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  17. "Runs on Linux" But what is the app written in? by exabrial · · Score: 1

    I hear a lot of fanfare about the OS, but what is the danged trading app written in? You can't "write something in linux"... is it C, Java, COBOL what?

    1. Re:"Runs on Linux" But what is the app written in? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the FA answers your question, if you would bother to RT thing.

  18. running on SUSE Linux by doperative · · Score: 1

    > At 8am today, the exchange’s main venue went into live trading with the Millennium IT matching engine, developed in C++ programming language and running on SUSE Linux ..

    Why did they choose SuSE and how does Microsofts intellectual property patent covenant with Novell impact on the decision. Is part of what the LSE paying to Novell being funneled back to Redmond. Is this the future of Microsoft innovation ?

  19. LSE investigating potential IT problem at close by DMandPenfold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    London Stock Exchange investigating potential system problem on closing auction http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3261177/london-stock-exchange-investigating-potential-system-problem-on-closing-auction/ The London Stock Exchange has said it is investigating an issue on its main cash market, which yesterday implemented a new matching engine based on Linux technology. The LSE declined to give details on what had happened until the investigation was complete, and it is not known whether the new system was responsible. The system, written in C++ language on Novell SUSE Linux-based datacentres, replaced a Microsoft .Net-based system that ran on Windows Server and SQL Server.... http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3261177/london-stock-exchange-investigating-potential-system-problem-on-closing-auction/

  20. Hope not.. by ideaz · · Score: 2

    the next thing they install is WINE.

    1. Re:Hope not.. by queBurro · · Score: 1

      ahhh! the day after my remaining mod point expired

      --
      sag
  21. Re:Mod downs and AC adhominem attacks vs. facts? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    If you read anything he says, he ignores anything you write and posts irrelevant facts. And he goes ad ad hominem about it. Just read the stuff above about ramdisks. Pure idiocy.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.