Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYSE Moves to Linux

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the penguins-with-dollars-in-their-bills dept.

Linux Business 351

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.'"

cancel ×

351 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes, but does it run... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704712)

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

Re:Yes, but does it run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704850)

...yea, well you one-upped the stoners too, asshole. I read the shit, why you gotta try to trick me like that?

Not the same as a Desktop (2, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704716)

It should be noted that the problems the NYSE is dealing with are very remote from those that the average desktop user is.

Now I know this seems obvious, but the "WOW if the NYSE is doing it!" crowd should try and control themselves at least a little.

Re:Not the same as a Desktop (1)

tristian_was_here (865394) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704924)

At least they know what they are doing...

Re:Not the same as a Desktop (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704958)

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.

Re:Not the same as a Desktop (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705360)

I love the internet. Only there can what is probably a perfectly reasonable man come off as a flaming dickwad. Or, what is probably a flaming dickwad can pretend he was a wife and kids.

Re:Not the same as a Desktop (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704990)

In the auto industry, the mantra was "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday."

In this case, it looks like "Sell on Monday, Win on Sunday." :)

Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (5, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705180)

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.

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (5, Interesting)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705240)

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

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (5, Funny)

cyranoVR (518628) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705282)

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


It could take...months?

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705346)

You're right.

A typical patch from Microsoft takes years, if at all.

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705356)

Maybe he's saying it's no better (nor worse) than Solaris with an uber-expensive support license? I don't know.

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (2)

NNKK (218503) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705258)

Or you might just have to go look online for a patch or new package that a community member created. Or if you have the requisite skillset, you might even be able to fix it yourself.

This is one of the advantages to FOSS. Yes, you might end up having to wait for the next release like any other package (or you might just prefer to wait, if you lack time or the bug isn't severe enough to motivate you), but you might have other options/choices.

You forgot an option. (4, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705330)

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.

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705332)

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.
And the great thing is that the NYSE could (if they needed to) ask any software company to fix the bug in the free software! They don't need to rely on the original vendor :-)

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

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705390)

And the great thing is that the NYSE could (if they needed to) ask any software company to fix the bug in the free software! They don't need to rely on the original vendor :-)
I highly doubt their contract with HP will allow that.

- RG>

Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (as in beer) (5, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705358)

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.

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705432)

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.
Read the summary:

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.
Does this sound to you like a naive customer who simply wants to purchase a "solution" and doesn't care what's inside because of their implicit faith in the provider?

Regardless, the upshot of this is that Linux is driving the mission-critical application and providing those six-sigmas. Both HP and NYSE are showing the highest level of confidence in Linux. This is nothing like 8 years ago when Sun could pooh-pooh Linux as a nice little toy.

Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705442)

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.
Or produce your own dirty hack/work around/legitimate fix int he mean time.

Re:Not the same as a Desktop (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705338)

the problems the NYSE is dealing with are very remote from those that the average desktop user is... the "WOW if the NYSE is doing it!" crowd should try and control themselves at least a little.
Umm, why? Running the NYSE is a whole lot more impressive than running solitaire.

Impending Failure Cascade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704728)

Funny how the preceding article to this one on the main page is about Failure Cascades.... ;)

So they moved from UNIX to Linux (1, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704748)

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.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704842)

Now if they had switched to/from Windows, then it'd be big news
 
Why? Because you have a bug up your ass about MS?
 
When is the nancy boy Linux crowd worry about improving their offering instead of the evil Microsoft? This isn't about computing, it's about being the biggest kid on the block. Sorry that your small penis won't let you be a man.

Troll much? (2)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705028)

Now if they had switched to/from Windows, then it'd be big news

Why? Because you have a bug up your ass about MS?

When is the nancy boy Linux crowd worry about improving their offering instead of the evil Microsoft? This isn't about computing, it's about being the biggest kid on the block.[...]
Well, you're either a troll or a shill, but I'll toss you a bone either way.


The 'nancy boy' Linux crowd will worry about improving our offering when my cd case at work, for fixing Windows desktops with a blown up registry, is full of Microsoft live cds that I can respin and burn at my will.

Re:Troll much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705250)

yeah, more excuses. you're not going to do anything but make yourself feel that you're against the forces of evil. someday you'll wake up and wonder what you wasted your time fighting when you realize that good computing practices are worth more than even the best oss and it doesn't piss off the customer.

Re:Troll much? (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705436)

yeah, more excuses. you're not going to do anything but make yourself feel that you're against the forces of evil. someday you'll wake up and wonder what you wasted your time fighting when you realize that good computing practices are worth more than even the best oss and it doesn't piss off the customer.
I am the customer; and that OSS software is the only way I can get the product Microsoft has so badly screwed up to work after it blows itself up. So, Microsoft has ticked off me, the customer. Who said anything about fight evil? I want the best tools, I don't care who creates them, so long as I can use and modify them with as little hassle as possible.


So far as IDEs go, Microsoft has the best. I've got 4 or 5 Visual Studios and Expression Studio - Granted, Microsoft screwed up the install disk on Visual Studio 2005 Standard and you have to do an xcopy from a copy of the cd on harddrive to another place on the harddrive.They screwed up the volume label on the cd. [microsoft.com] After trying to get support from their forum who insisted I call them, who insisted I take the CD back to the college, who had to get get a new CD. Of course, the new CD has the same error. Then you find out that the install MUST be installed over top of the express edition. You can't change the path. You can't have both installed at the same time.

So far as everything else goes, my toolbox doesn't contain many Microsoft products. Not because I'm fighting evil, I'm trying to get my job done with as little hassle as possible.

Now, what are these good computing practices you're speaking of? You have left absolutely no context clues as to what you're talking about.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705068)

Whoa, you're on a pretty short trigger yourself. Your position on MSFT a little heavy is it?

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704960)

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.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705178)

NYSE, the Ivory Tower of capitalism, switching to Linux.
Makes you wonder what distro -- another thing the article doesn't mention. I'll make a wild guess that it's from a publicly-traded company (RHT would be appropriate, since they're NYSE listed...). So it cuts both ways: Linux has switched to capitalism, too.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (5, Funny)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705218)

Hahaha, you mean GNU/Linux right?

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705222)

Capitalism is the propagation of private ownership. The stock exchange is the greatest accomplishment of the new communism and differs only in implementation from anything in the USSR or China.

It's still a great thing for linux I guess, but it has nothing to do with us dirty worker proles who use linux in our own endeavors, and who are concerned about 'free' and 'open'.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705412)

The new communism.
  entrance requirements:
    Must be or be descended from a successful capitalist.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (1)

Lotunggim Ginsawat (689998) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705280)

NASDAQ runs on Windows Server 2003, with seven sigma reliability. Ballmer won?

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705052)

"And who wins? HP of course. Who loses? Sun."
The article doesn't really say who "loses", since it doesn't say what these systems are replacing. It does say that NYSE still "runs numerous Unix systems, especially ones with Solaris", and the quote in the synopsis points out that they seem to regard Solaris more kindly than HP-UX or AIX, so unclear how much Sun is "losing" here.

So HP "wins" in that they get the biz for this round of commodity x86 systems, but probably at a razor-thin margin or even a loss, and NYSE is of course free to buy the next round from Dell, HP, IBM or Sun -- this being kind of the point of the "commodity" part. But they "lose" in that HP-UX is no longer on the table. IBM also "loses" since AIX, and thus POWER, is similarly shunned.

Now if they had switched to/from Windows, then it'd be big news.
Maybe they did! Article sayeth not.

As it is, it's not that big of a deal since Linux is in plenty of mission critical systems.
Oops -- but they're not using Linux for their mission critical systems. Article says they're using Itanium boxes running NonStop for that. So that's a "win" (or probably "retain") for HP, but it's not Linux, and it's not even commodity x86.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705266)

Linux canabilizing commercial unix was predicted long ago and has been happening for years. The whole 'this will topple MS on the desktop' is a fanboy attitude with little footing in reality.

How I read that comment. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705348)

Quote; And who wins? HP of course.

HP does indeed win, but I have to say I never thought I'd see the day when HP offered Linux over HP-UX on their servers. That alone is as significant as IBM's push on selling Linux-based server systems when they own AIX. Things have really changed, for the better I think.

Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705364)

The London Stock Exchange [google.co.uk] switched to Windows (is it bigger or smaller, in terms of number of transactions, than New York? I don't know).

Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704752)

Another story the Linux fanboys can spank it to.

Re:Wow (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705234)

And it was so good that I did it five times in a row and now I'm going for a sixth! Too bad your windows makes you impotent!

His final comment (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704756)

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

no fooling. (5, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704998)

"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...)

Re:no fooling. (1, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705318)

This made downtime cost something like $4 million / hour.
Boohoo. I mean not to sound utterly cynical, but an outage didn't cost them squat, other than whatever extra expense they would incur to expedite repair. That's almost like saying the MAFIAA loses money to piracy. You can't LOSE what you don't have.

Right I know, it's economics, accounting, Wallstreet math. Blah blah. I had those classes too. I am really not every sympathetic to billion dollar businesses potential for failure.

A) It won't happen because the Gov would just bail them out on our dime (ala the airlines the last few years) B) "The Bells" in particular have stuffed enough tax breaks and kick backs into their pockets over the years, fuck them and their "4 million / hour."

Reliability (0, Troll)

Smooth Hound (594058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704758)

I work in Healthcare IT, and as much as I like Linux, it is my experience that Linux is not yet reliable for mission critical stuff. It can't compare with HP-UX or AIX. Heck, it is even worst than Windows. I understand the desire of lowering the costs, but how much is an hour of downtime? I guess they will find that out pretty soon.

Re:Reliability (3, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704798)

I work in Healthcare IT, and as much as I like Linux, it is my experience that Linux is not yet reliable for mission critical stuff.
Might be more to do with you or your I.T. staff than Linux. 5 nines Linux systems have been around for years.
 

Re:Reliability (1, Informative)

Smooth Hound (594058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704862)

Whoever claim 5 nines uptime is an idiot.

Do the math, 99.999% means 1 hour downtime in 10 years.

And of course, if the same people get (much) better uptime from HP-UX and AIX than Linux, of course it is not Linux that is less reliable...

Linux has its places. A mission critical database server is not one of them.

Re:Reliability (3, Insightful)

zx-15 (926808) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704900)

It's just a pity that Oracle doesn't think so.

Re:Reliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705042)

Funny, I've done it with several systems. You're the idiot. Hell, I've even had an active directory going since late in 1999. Sure, machines fail, but a system doesn't need to fail. You're the moron.

-John

Re:Reliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705064)

Do the math, 99.999% means 1 hour downtime in 10 years.

Sure, or about 5 minutes a year. I know Debian systems which get system upgrades once a year, and one reboot is definitely under 5 minutes.

Linux has its places. A mission critical database server is not one of them.

Can you explain why not? What do you know about mission-critical databases that Google and Amazon don't?

I understand the desire of lowering the costs, but how much is an hour of downtime?

I don't know, and I'm not sure why anybody cares. When's the last time you saw a Linux box have an hour of downtime (which would not have also occurred on HP/UX)? My business runs on Linux servers, and we haven't had any downtime in the past year on any of them. I really have to wonder what you're doing if you're having stability problems with Linux database servers.

Re:Reliability (1)

KMnO4 (684253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705134)

Agreed. The OP looks like a FUD-spreader to me.

Re:Reliability (0)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704828)

How is Linux worse then Windows for downtime? In Windows, I had to reboot on almost a weekly basis at least, with Linux even with an application crash or so, the most I have to do is CTRL+ALT+BACKSPACE to kill X. Sure Linux might not have the "reliability" of other UNIX-like systems, but it is much newer then UNIX and therefore hasn't had much time to be reliable. In my few years of working with Linux there never has been more then 3-5 minutes of downtime due to software, and that was just doing risky stuff that we shouldn't have attempted. All other faults were due to the hardware themselves, the Linux kernel is very very very stable (way much more than Windows) and most applications are very stable also.

Re:Reliability (4, Informative)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704986)

"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.

Re:Reliability (1, Troll)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705186)

Oh just go away with the no more BSOD's on windows XP ec. bullshit. Yeah, like random reboots are all that much better. Yes, we all know, there is now a windows service that initiates at boot and monitors the system for a crash that would initiate a BSOD, so instead this service reboots the system, like really fucking cool and useful that, a genuine marketdroid M$=B$ exercise in marketing (same number of crashes you only choose whether you BSOD by disabling the service or random reboot).

Re:Reliability (2, Interesting)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705274)

"Oh just go away with the no more BSOD's on windows XP ec. bullshit. Yeah, like random reboots are all that much better. Yes, we all know, there is now a windows service that initiates at boot and monitors the system for a crash that would initiate a BSOD, so instead this service reboots the system, like really fucking cool and useful that, a genuine marketdroid M$=B$ exercise in marketing (same number of crashes you only choose whether you BSOD by disabling the service or random reboot)."

Wow, who pissed in your Cheerios? I didn't think I said anything that warranted being treated like a MS fanboy. How did XP find its way into the discussion? I was talking about servers and the servers I ran were mostly rock solid with negligible BSOD or random reboots that were always traceable to the applications they ran or flaky hardware like PCI serial boards or the serial devices that attach to them.

Get a grip dude.

Re:Reliability (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705224)

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.
Yeah, BSODs were kind of an event when we ran NT. Everybody was used to getting them once or twice a week when we ran 95 or 98, but when we switched to NT the frequency dropped to maybe one or two a quarter. When somebody got a blue screen under NT, it was cause for everybody to come over and look and make a crack about how that wouldn't have happened if only we were allowed to run (Linux / VMS / HP-UX / SunOS / DOS 6).

Re:Reliability (1)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704878)

I work in Healthcare IT

Voluntarily? I think that alone is enough to call the rest of your opinions into question.

I'm kidding, I'm just kidding... but I worked with Kaiser Permanente IT in Oakland, CA for 3 or 4 years, so I'm not really kidding. They were a bunch of mindless jerks, running NT 4.0 on like 50,000 end user desktops in 2004 because they couldn't port client/server apps to any other platform or migrate away from the old app. Ask me about the time when Slammer was going around and they had to send monkeys to every desktop PC in the building (if not the whole company) to install patches... from a floppy disk.

What sort of "mission critical stuff" are you worried about? Lotus Notes 4.0? I'm pretty sure that runs on Linux too.

Re:Reliability (1)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704906)

and I'm a mindless jerk too, for not closing that italics tag. (use the preview button)

Re:Reliability (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705076)

They were a bunch of mindless jerks, running NT 4.0 on like 50,000 end user desktops in 2004...
That explains a bit. We once interviewed a guy who had worked in a northern California Kaiser Permanente (Sacramento I think) for a couple of years.

As you might already have guessed, he didn't get the job.

Re:Reliability (4, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704882)

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.

Re:Reliability (5, Informative)

teebob21 (947095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705106)

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 [wikipedia.org] ! 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.

Re:Reliability (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705220)

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.
If by "linux-based platform" you mean Debian, then yes. Other distros aren't even worth the try :)

Re:Reliability (1)

eharvill (991859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705396)

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.
Not that I am defending Windows at all, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Tandems are a pretty closed, tight system. You can only do so much with them. Rebooting a Solaris box once a month is acceptable? Could your Windows headaches be crappy apps/developers and not the OS itself? Just because someone knows Visual Basic does NOT qualify them as a developer. I think part of the uptime/system problems could stem from the barriers of entry to develop on each platform. Windows developers are a dime a dozen while *nix developers typically are not.

I think another part of the problem is that people compare their Windows desktops to an Enterprise Windows server and assume they have the same issues b/c they might run the same or a similar OS. Think about how much crap people install on their desktops compared to how a true server (should) be run. I've seen many Linux, Unix and Windows *servers" with 365+ days of uptime because they are run the "correct" way. I think part of the issue is your run of the mill Jr Windows admin is more likely to junk up a Windows Server than a run of the mill Jr Linux or Unix admin would junk up their respective systems.

Year of Linux (1)

Karl0Erik (1138443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704762)

So apparently 2007 is- err, was- the year of Linux on the desktop- err, the New York Stock Exchange. Anyway, w00t.

Re:Year of Linux (1, Funny)

The Orange Mage (1057436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704796)

We ALL know the year of "Linux on the Desktop" is the same year we win the war on Drugs. Also, it's the release date for Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:Year of Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705120)

Or win the war of terror, err, war on terror...

Inevitability, Mr. Anderson. (2, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704814)

Linux this, KDE that, Wikipedia here... What all of Free has in common is "Openness" - imagine twenty years from now: I believe that more and more content will move towards a modern variation of the "stone soup" parable until its the defacto standard. Openness allows the rapid creation and innovation of practically anything under the sun. And that pool only gets larger everyday. The only thing that can stop it is if government explicity steps in and makes giving away your effort illegal - other than that it is simply inevitable, give or take twenty years - that Openness will be the primary regulating force for all manner of content.

My name is Neo! (1)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704834)

(I also go by gQuigs)

Openness, schmopenness (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705312)

"It's the smell ... don't you agree, Mr. Anderson?"

Unix to Unix-like change isn't big (1)

zukinux (1094199) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704838)

It doesn't worth being slashdoted at all.
If they moved all their computers using ANY OS including MS's, that might be a good story.

Until then, THANK YOU, COME AGAIN!

Re:Unix to Unix-like change isn't big (2, Insightful)

watzinaneihm (627119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705066)

It is not that trivial a case.
I visited the trading floor (of which not much exists now -compared to past) in August. The desktops the traders used were Windows XP - Linux in an equal split. Presumably the back-end servers is what they are talking about here which according to the story was Unix. So it is a case where Microsoft had managed to get a foothold in a Unix only shop in the desktop and failed to leverage their monopoly power to capture the Server market.

Re:Unix to Unix-like change isn't big (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705196)

Don't forget the traders are not the NYSE, they work for other people and are just connecting to NYSE systems. So all you post implies is that a lot of other brokerage houses are switching mission critical desktops away from windows to Linux, interesting ;).

NASDAQ hasn't changed (2, Insightful)

compumike (454538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704854)

The NASDAQ exchange, which has always focused more on technology, is totally a Microsoft fanboy. Maybe that's because MSFT is the largest stock on the NASDAQ exchange.

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

Re:NASDAQ hasn't changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704892)

Or vice versa? o.-

Re:NASDAQ hasn't changed (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704944)

Yep, NASDAQ is the largest stock on the MSFT exchange.

Re:NASDAQ hasn't changed (1)

ebonum (830686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705132)

A few years ago, I spent a fair amount of time in Metrotech ( their Brooklyn data center ), and I didn't see much MS in the back office. What do you base this statement on?

Re:NASDAQ hasn't changed (1)

flipfone (992837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705446)

A few years ago the NASDAQ was run on Tandem, and Unisys servers for the quoting and sales, there were alot of ms servers in some of the networking items. Now theres no more Unisys, and almost no more Tandems. What were they replaced with? When i was there talk was that it was going to be linux boxes, so a new deptartment of Open Systems came into play. So yes it has changed in just a couple of years.

Take that London Stock Exchange!! (0, Offtopic)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704866)

FTW!!!!!

Solaris? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21704916)

'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.'"

I thought Solaris was open-source?

Re:Solaris? (1)

sick_soul (794596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705108)

The OpenSolaris project does convey code under a free software
license, but there are core components which are only available as
binary blobs, under non-free licenses. They are necessary to
successfully run a Solaris system.

This is the OpenSolaris binary license under which most of these
non-free components are distributed:

http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_binary_license/ [opensolaris.org]

Re:Solaris? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705114)

I thought Solaris was open-source?
It is open source, but it is also still owned by Sun. And like your quoteed info says, NYSE wants to move away from proprietary platforms.

FALSE! (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705142)

the Solaris that is paid for and is required for a sun supported platform, is NOT OpenSolaris, however much may be in common. Solaris is closed source, period.

Re:Solaris? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705288)

"And like your quoteed info says, NYSE wants to move away from proprietary platforms."

Are they building their own Linux distro?

Re:Solaris? (1)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705138)

I'd imagine that it being open source made it more attractive to them as he set Solaris apart from AIX and HP-UX. There's probably still an element of vendor lock-in however, and the flexibility of linux in addition to the lower cost were probably the clinchers. I do not know what the policies are for recompiling core solaris components at will. I would assume they are more restrictive than linux (anyone with firsthand knowledge know?). Support contract costs may also be involved.

Re:Solaris? (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705158)

you must be confusing opensolaris with solaris, you won't be recompiling your Sun-mandated & supported closed source solaris. If you ran opensolaris you'd be totally unsupported.

Congratulations, Mr. Torvalds. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21704948)

Linus Torvalds, Congratulations. MJ

ignoring reality is costing US more every day (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705046)

it's like writing bad checks to cover bad checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/opinion/14krugman.html?em&ex=1197781200&en=36b8826fa6894b94&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

time to get real yet? let's think for a moment where all the real money is going/has gone forever.

it could never happen here in the land of the scriptdead pr ?firm? georgrwellian fairytail?

all the software in the universe will never be able to balance those books. you, & yOUR children, will be paying for this mess (in several ways) for decades to come.

"Proprietary UNIX"? (3, Informative)

upnarms (766320) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705082)

I never thought I'd see these two words together. UNIX [unix.org] is what happens when you meet a set of interfaces [unix.org] defined by a standards body known as The Open Group [opengroup.org] .

I bet we won't be seeing this story in.... (3, Funny)

Tracy Reed (3563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705118)

...the latest issue of the "Highly Reliable Times".

Hope the license doesn't give them trouble. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705136)

Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

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. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
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.

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. This was simply unacceptable.

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.

Thank you for your time.

please mod down this cut-n-paste troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705172)

wow, this is so lame

Re:Hope the license doesn't give them trouble. (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705176)

I call bullshit. Programs compiled with GCC can have any license the programmer wants! Hell, the *BSD people use GCC to compile programs that have a BSD license.

Re:Hope the license doesn't give them trouble. (3, Funny)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705276)

You need a new lawyer- or to stop trolling- whichever you find most applicable.

Re:Hope the license doesn't give them trouble. (5, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705388)

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. [news.com] 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.

Bad Idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705260)

Who is the bastard who tagged this as "badidea"?
Why would conversion to Linux be a bad idea?

What are the [real] costs? (1, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705302)

I am curious to know what the real costs involved are. Our Redmond folks would point to these costs as one of the reasons why an investment in Linux might not be a wise idea.


The other thing is: How is the NYSE handling integration of Linux into a windows network? I am sure there are a few windows boxes at the exchange. There is this guy at www.linux.com who is claiming or alleging that Ubuntu is hard to integrate in a Windows network. Here is the link http://www.linux.com/feature/122681 [linux.com]


On a personal note, I'd rather have Linux have better configuration tools OR the same or similar format in its configuration text files. One particularly hard configuration file to modify is the Dovecot/Postfix LDA. This is what I mean, have a look:

dovecot unix - n n - - pipe
        flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -d ${recipient}


Yes, you have to deal with this stuff, and only God knows what those "-" mean. For those that might not know, the user's line above one MUST look alike for the server to work. This is a far cry from Samba's configuration files that are much simpler.

Last but not least, can the folks at the NYSE confirm or deny that all server tasks are now handled by Linux? I hope they are, but would not be surprised if they come out and say they cannot confirm or deny that very fact.

Linux uptime. (5, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705320)

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.

Re:Linux uptime. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705342)

I'm curious about the 7.62mm. was that a 7.62 x 39 or 7.62 x 51mm?

Re:Linux uptime. (2, Funny)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705410)

"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."

But you can't say it was bulletproof.

maybe headline should have been (2, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705384)

NYSE moves to Nonstop on Itanium2, and oh yeah also some GNU/Linux x86 servers on the side. Time will tell if Nonstop is as good on Itanium as it was on MIPS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>