View Full Version : LSE moves from Windows to Linux and Solaris
Dr. C
October 6th, 2009, 03:02 AM
The London Stock Exchange is moving away from Windows to GNU / Linux and Solaris for trading. http://www.ibspublishing.com/index.cfm?section=news&action=view&id=13440
At one point the LSE was featured as a case study by Microsoft as to why Windows was better than GNU / Linux but then came this software glitch that cost traders million of dollars. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/article4710793.ece
PhoHammer
October 6th, 2009, 03:09 AM
The London Stock Exchange is moving away from Windows to GNU / Linux and Solaris for trading. http://www.ibspublishing.com/index.cfm?section=news&action=view&id=13440
At one point the LSE was featured as a case study by Microsoft as to why Windows was better than GNU / Linux but then came this software glitch that cost traders million of dollars. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/article4710793.ece
Holy crap! That windows period sucked for the traders! It's good to
hear of another convert, though.:guitar:
Mark76
October 6th, 2009, 01:07 PM
And it's not doing too well in the other bourses either
At first sight, news that the London Stock Exchange (LSE) is moving from the Microsoft .Net-based TradElect to the GNU/Linux-based MillenniumIT system, is just another win for free software. But the details provide some fascinating insights into the world of very high performance – and very expensive – enterprise systems.
For example, the LSE is not just moving from one application to another, but from running someone else's software to running its own, by buying a company that makes it. One reason: it's massively cheaper:
Compared to the bill of $65 million for TradElect, MillenniumIT, a Sri Lankan developer, is a bargain at $30 million. LSE gains a 100 per cent shareholding in the company, an offshore development centre (located near Colombo) with 451 specialists (around 300 in the software division) and the technology, which boasts high productivity, flexibility, robustness and considerably lower costs than TradElect. LSE predicts annual cost savings of at least £10 million ($14.7 million) from 2011/12. ‘The new technology is a lot lighter, nimbler and easier to install,’ says David Lester, director of information and technology at LSE. It will also enable faster releases, he adds. The current wait is three to six months.
That's a pretty savage indictment of the costs of a complex .Net system. The GNU/Linux-based software is also faster, and offers several other major benefits:
The new platform will be based on Linux and Solaris, while TradElect is based on Microsoft’s .Net technology. The choice of the latter, which has raised quite a few eyebrows in the market, is defended by Lester. He claims that LSE is coming off TradElect not because of the .Net technology itself (although its trading speed is 2.7 milliseconds compared to Linux-based Chi-X’s 0.4 milliseconds), but ‘for more control, less costs, and the ability to build and innovate’.
Best of all, perhaps, are the knock-on effects:
With LSE and its Italian subsidiary, Borsa Italiana, converting to Linux, Microsoft’s .Net offering is left with virtually no takers – the only remaining one being Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). ‘JSE has been aware for some time that the LSE has been considering its trading technology options,’ says Leanne Parsons, JSE’s chief operating officer. The South African exchange ‘will be holding discussions’ with its UK counterpart regarding the latter’s technology replacement project. However, it is ‘a bit too early in the process’ to go into any detail, she adds.
A Norwegian exchange, Oslo Børs, which was supposed to start using TradElect in February 2010 (as a result of a service provider agreement signed by Oslo Børs and LSE in March 2009), will now also migrate to MillenniumIT’s offering.
So, rather than being just any old deal that Microsoft happened to lose, this really is something of a total rout, and in an extremely demanding and high-profile sector. Enterprise wins for GNU/Linux don't come much better than this.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2568&blogid=14
Arup
October 6th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Thumbs up for LSE, at the end of the day, cost as well as reliability does matter, even to a stock exchange.
Mark76
October 6th, 2009, 01:26 PM
What does the NYSE run on?
j.bell730
October 6th, 2009, 01:44 PM
What does the NYSE run on?
Red Hat (http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1316018,00.html).
Sealbhach
October 6th, 2009, 05:30 PM
http://tipotheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/reliabletimes.jpg
solitaire
October 6th, 2009, 09:25 PM
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2568
At first sight, news that the London Stock Exchange (LSE) is moving from the Microsoft .Net-based TradElect to the GNU/Linux-based MillenniumIT system, is just another win for free software.
But the details (http://www.ibspublishing.com/index.cfm?section=news&action=view&id=13440) provide some fascinating insights into the world of very high performance – and very expensive – enterprise systems.
For example, the LSE is not just moving from one application to another, but from running someone else's software to running its own, by buying a company that makes it. One reason: it's massively cheaper:
Another 'Win' for GNU/Linux :guitar:
spoons
October 6th, 2009, 09:51 PM
Microsoft won't be happy with this. Hopefully should encourage competition.
lovinglinux
October 6th, 2009, 10:28 PM
EDIT: threads were merged
beercz
October 6th, 2009, 10:40 PM
The London Stock Exchange is moving away from Windows to GNU / Linux and Solaris for trading. http://www.ibspublishing.com/index.cfm?section=news&action=view&id=13440
At one point the LSE was featured as a case study by Microsoft as to why Windows was better than GNU / Linux but then came this software glitch that cost traders million of tdollars. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/article4710793.ece
The last article doesn't say that the software glitch was a microsoft software problem.
Chronon
October 6th, 2009, 11:03 PM
If you search around, most accounts lay the blame at MS's feet.
For example: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10036286-62.html
Mehall
October 6th, 2009, 11:33 PM
The Software that glitched was custom made for the LSE, and MSFT worked directly with the company making it, just so MSFT could take as much credit for "London Stock Exchange Chooses Microsoft" as possible.
The end result was something like 40/60 effort, the 40 from MSFT, for the Software, plus the OS and other related tools.
Fault squarely belongs to Microsoft.
I don't like to see an opponent fall like that, it's not an honourable death, but it's their own fault.
samjh
October 7th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Felled by its own sword, Microsoft has.
Ian dewhurst
October 7th, 2009, 01:18 AM
I read this a while ago.
It was frustrating to read that they were originally using GNU Linux and Solaris but then switched to Windows.
But really outdated products in some cases they were using 2000 versions which was frightening.
I know "stable" as a sense is better but office 2000 was quite a buggy product in its own right.
Junkieman
October 7th, 2009, 07:19 AM
I just read this on Slashdot (http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/10/06/1742203/London-Stock-Exchange-Rejects-NET-For-Open-Source), it's great that they move to the Open Source solution for more control! Go GNU/Linux!
As a side-note I develop in .Net daily, its a great framework considering its origins, but a system is only as good and secure as the people implementing it.
benmoran
October 7th, 2009, 08:29 AM
I think with a system as critical as that, they really do need to be able to control all aspects of it in-house.
Chronon
October 7th, 2009, 09:38 AM
I think with a system as critical as that, they really do need to be able to control all aspects of it in-house.
I think that is the crucial point. Having the ability to maintain mission critical software in-house seems like a necessity and seems like a more important factor than the overt Windows vs. Linux facade.
Giant Speck
October 7th, 2009, 01:25 PM
I think that is the crucial point. Having the ability to maintain mission critical software in-house seems like a necessity and seems like a more important factor than the overt Windows vs. Linux facade.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. However, there are a lot of people out there that would rather focus on the trivial "Windows vs. Linux" aspect of this decision. In fact, that's probably the only reason this thread is even here.
fela
October 7th, 2009, 01:36 PM
The only thing that surprises me is that they were running Windows previously. It's one of those 'what were they thinking' things. Well at least they've realized their mistake :)
beercz
October 7th, 2009, 02:05 PM
If you search around, most accounts lay the blame at MS's feet.
For example: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10036286-62.html
Yes I know, but nevertheless the last article the OP cites to doesn't have any references to MS.
Dr. C
October 7th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Yes I know, but nevertheless the last article the OP cites to doesn't have any references to MS.
Here is the Microsoft get the facts page with the LSE case study available for download. http://www.microsoft.com/uk/getthefacts/lse.mspx
Viva
October 7th, 2009, 10:27 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head there. However, there are a lot of people out there that would rather focus on the trivial "Windows vs. Linux" aspect of this decision. In fact, that's probably the only reason this thread is even here.
It is a linux vs windows issue because it is easier to create an in-house OS using linux. And the reason this thread is here is that it is related to linux and this is a linux forum.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.