blogs.computerworld.com— Fed up with Windows' failures, one of world's major stock exchanges is joining many others in making the switch to reliable Linux.
Oct 7, 2009View in Crawl 4
Yeah, and now I know why my bank is always having IT issues. I use a major UK bank, and I was horrified to find that a lot of their critical systems run Windows. My friends bank (another major UK institution) use some custom UNIX. He has less problems. Perhaps a coincidence. But maybe not...And claiming Windows is as stable as anything is crazy. Actually, it's about as stable as a stag party attendee after 10 pints of cider. Yeah, that's a good comparison actually.
Google *does* charge for usage of its search engine (and e-mail): it's called advertising, and they make quite a bit of money at it. They also license their search technology to others. Not that this matters: open-source doesn't mean you can't charge for it. Even if Google's search engine technology was open-source, you'd still need their huge infrastructure in order to set up a live fork of the web service...That's what happens when you push inadequate analogies too far: they break down."whatever "open source" means for web services"If you can't define what something is, how could you say it would be better?Personally, I use both closed-source and open-source apps. That said, I prefer to use OS alternatives when they meet my needs, and I am a big advocate of open-source Operating Systems (because there is a fundamental difference between apps and OSes).
Luchid, please name me three organizations with over 50,000 desktops that are running Linux on the desktop as their corporate standard. If you can't, it means what you're suggesting is that you know some secret that no enterprise architect in the world knows, which is a load of s**t.
@archiesteelThat's a valid point about the infrastructure, the analogy does break down, which I acknowledged by saying "whatever that means." However, and perhaps you have to look deeper into the details of why govts are mandating open source when an alternative exists, but some of those reasons apply as much to services as they do client software.One argument is that of lock-in. It's actually a dependency argument. If you use proprietary software for something as fundamental as running a government, and the government is dependent on that software, you have now made the fate of the entire government dependent on the existence of, support of, and continued existence of that proprietary software.You can replace the word "software" with webservice and make that same argument.Related arguments can be made when you take into account where the company that produces the proprietary software resides. Can you take a dependency on a proprietary solution from a domestic corporations? From a national corporation of an ally? From and independent corporation of an ally? Of can adversary?You can apply all these questions to web services as readily as you can client software.In the client software world, part of the solution has been to use open document formats, so that the data isn't tied to a document format, which, in turn, may or may not be tied to a proprietary software application. Likewise, part of the solution has been, as in the parent thread, to mandate the use open source client software whenever possible. If the government has access to the source, then they aren't as dependent on the vendor.While these same questions apply to web services, the solutions aren't as clear. Open-Source doesn't have the same meaning, yet, a country can still find itself dependent upon a closed web service.I don't see how, for governments, being dependent upon a company for a web service is any more acceptable than being dependent upon a company for a document format or client software or operating system.Know what, forget search. Let's talk Office Applications.If South Africa wanted to use Microsoft Office, I imagine this law would make them use Open Office or Abiword or some open source alternative.But, if South Africa wanted to use Google Documents, would it also make them use Open Office or AbiWord instead? Could they counter the open-source client with the infrastructure argument?We have two apples and two oranges here. 1. Open source client apps.2. Proprietary client apps.3. Proprietary web apps.4. Open source web apps - whatever that means.I can assume that 1 vs 2, 1 wins. I suppose that if it were 1 vs. 3, 1 would still win. So Open Office > Google Documents, by law.If there were such a thing as a 4, then for 1 vs 4, either would be acceptable. and 2 or 3 vs 4, 4 would be mandated by law.Now, I don't know what 4 means, but I can imagine some things. Maybe you have a version of a service that you run, but for the SA government, you give them full access to the server, the settings, full customization, even full access to the source that runs the service. Now you're an open-source web app. And that should win, according to the law, over a proprietary web app.going back to search, you said:"Even if Google's search engine technology was open-source, you'd still need their huge infrastructure in order to set up a live fork of the web service..."So, lets say that Yahoo did just that. What if they they released the source for their search-engine technology. What if they made their index completely public. What if they just decided to open it up all the way, let universities and researchers play along, make the equivalent of linux for search engines. They would continue to run Yahoo on their own massive infrastructure, but everyone who wanted to could add a server node to the massive Yahoo search engine supercomputer. Some people might fork the code and make their own yahoo distros, others might set up their own, target indexes, but many would play along with the one yahoo, the one main branch.Then what? Would the SA government be restricted from using Google in favor of using Yahoo for search?Just stuff to think about. I don't see why you're arguing so much, if you're for open-source why are you so willing to accept services that are completely controlled by the offering company?
@dutchgullder2: I think you need to read the news about the cause of train accidents before you cite train signals as a reason to trust MS-Windows.1)Trainload of Job Corps workers from West Virginia was wiped out by a train accident not far from the nation's capital.Cause of the accident was found to be train signals. The company running the train system was revealed to have no idea what was going on by network television which did a simple thing.They split the screen showing two live feeds: On one side of the screen viewers saw a wrecked train lying on its side. On the other side of the screen, a rep. speaking from the control center for the train system said the news reporters were wrong and their system showed the train was 20 miles away from the location where it had crashed, perfectly fine.Guess which side of the screen the viewers believed?Eight of 11 Train Crash Victims Died of Fire, Not Crash Injuries<a class="user" href="http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N5/traincrash.5w.html" rel="nofollow">http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N5/traincrash.5w.html</a>FTA: "The Washington-bound MARC train failed to stop at a red signal and tore into the side of the Amtrak locomotive as the Amtrak train was changing tracks."2)It is okay to believe that the train signals have spectacular failures. Last calamitous train wreck in D.C. happened only months ago. NTSB cited reason for the fatal crash: signals."Signal Failure Cited in D.C. Train Crash" <a class="user" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/national/main5128298.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/national ...</a>FTA: "Investigators say equipment that is supposed to detect stopped trains in Washington, D.C., failed periodically in the days leading up to a deadly Metro transit train crash. Nine people were killed and more than 70 injured June 22 when a train slammed into another train stopped on the tracks near the Maryland state line."Upon analyzing the cause of the D.C. train crash - the signaling system - the NTSB suddenly got uncomfortable. Because the same system that failed is used around the U.S.<a class="user" href="http://wbztv.com/local/train.signal.warning.2.1202308.html" rel="nofollow">http://wbztv.com/local/train.signal.warning.2.1202 ...</a>FTA: "A federal safety board is urging checks by all transit lines and railroads that use the same signal system that failed to detect a stopped train in a deadly crash in Washington, DC earlier this year.... The NTSB had said previously that equipment that is supposed to detect stopped trains failed periodically in the days leading up to the crash.... The DC Metro also said the system failed to detect trains during tests after the crash. "Ergo, it does not work.Here is more discussion on the train signaling/monitoring system in place at the crash:<a class="user" href="http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=75&amp;t=62770&amp;st=0&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;start=240" rel="nofollow">http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=75& ...</a>A couple of years ago DC commuters were stranded by Windows malware. Down under a railway experienced a similar problem for the same reason. Airlines have have had to switch to manual systems when booking passengers for same reason. Maryland MVA had a day of computer downtime a couple of years ago for the same reason.I doubt London Stock Exchange will be faulted for their decision to switch to Linux.
scottussOct 9, 2009
Yeah, and now I know why my bank is always having IT issues. I use a major UK bank, and I was horrified to find that a lot of their critical systems run Windows. My friends bank (another major UK institution) use some custom UNIX. He has less problems. Perhaps a coincidence. But maybe not...And claiming Windows is as stable as anything is crazy. Actually, it's about as stable as a stag party attendee after 10 pints of cider. Yeah, that's a good comparison actually.
cowanh00Oct 9, 2009
Come on name and shame those banks! ;-)
archiesteelOct 9, 2009
Google *does* charge for usage of its search engine (and e-mail): it's called advertising, and they make quite a bit of money at it. They also license their search technology to others. Not that this matters: open-source doesn't mean you can't charge for it. Even if Google's search engine technology was open-source, you'd still need their huge infrastructure in order to set up a live fork of the web service...That's what happens when you push inadequate analogies too far: they break down."whatever "open source" means for web services"If you can't define what something is, how could you say it would be better?Personally, I use both closed-source and open-source apps. That said, I prefer to use OS alternatives when they meet my needs, and I am a big advocate of open-source Operating Systems (because there is a fundamental difference between apps and OSes).
archiesteelOct 9, 2009
Yes it is, which is why I said Unix or Unix-like.
ohpleaseOct 9, 2009
Luchid, please name me three organizations with over 50,000 desktops that are running Linux on the desktop as their corporate standard. If you can't, it means what you're suggesting is that you know some secret that no enterprise architect in the world knows, which is a load of s**t.
azpatOct 9, 2009
@archiesteelThat's a valid point about the infrastructure, the analogy does break down, which I acknowledged by saying "whatever that means." However, and perhaps you have to look deeper into the details of why govts are mandating open source when an alternative exists, but some of those reasons apply as much to services as they do client software.One argument is that of lock-in. It's actually a dependency argument. If you use proprietary software for something as fundamental as running a government, and the government is dependent on that software, you have now made the fate of the entire government dependent on the existence of, support of, and continued existence of that proprietary software.You can replace the word "software" with webservice and make that same argument.Related arguments can be made when you take into account where the company that produces the proprietary software resides. Can you take a dependency on a proprietary solution from a domestic corporations? From a national corporation of an ally? From and independent corporation of an ally? Of can adversary?You can apply all these questions to web services as readily as you can client software.In the client software world, part of the solution has been to use open document formats, so that the data isn't tied to a document format, which, in turn, may or may not be tied to a proprietary software application. Likewise, part of the solution has been, as in the parent thread, to mandate the use open source client software whenever possible. If the government has access to the source, then they aren't as dependent on the vendor.While these same questions apply to web services, the solutions aren't as clear. Open-Source doesn't have the same meaning, yet, a country can still find itself dependent upon a closed web service.I don't see how, for governments, being dependent upon a company for a web service is any more acceptable than being dependent upon a company for a document format or client software or operating system.Know what, forget search. Let's talk Office Applications.If South Africa wanted to use Microsoft Office, I imagine this law would make them use Open Office or Abiword or some open source alternative.But, if South Africa wanted to use Google Documents, would it also make them use Open Office or AbiWord instead? Could they counter the open-source client with the infrastructure argument?We have two apples and two oranges here. 1. Open source client apps.2. Proprietary client apps.3. Proprietary web apps.4. Open source web apps - whatever that means.I can assume that 1 vs 2, 1 wins. I suppose that if it were 1 vs. 3, 1 would still win. So Open Office > Google Documents, by law.If there were such a thing as a 4, then for 1 vs 4, either would be acceptable. and 2 or 3 vs 4, 4 would be mandated by law.Now, I don't know what 4 means, but I can imagine some things. Maybe you have a version of a service that you run, but for the SA government, you give them full access to the server, the settings, full customization, even full access to the source that runs the service. Now you're an open-source web app. And that should win, according to the law, over a proprietary web app.going back to search, you said:"Even if Google's search engine technology was open-source, you'd still need their huge infrastructure in order to set up a live fork of the web service..."So, lets say that Yahoo did just that. What if they they released the source for their search-engine technology. What if they made their index completely public. What if they just decided to open it up all the way, let universities and researchers play along, make the equivalent of linux for search engines. They would continue to run Yahoo on their own massive infrastructure, but everyone who wanted to could add a server node to the massive Yahoo search engine supercomputer. Some people might fork the code and make their own yahoo distros, others might set up their own, target indexes, but many would play along with the one yahoo, the one main branch.Then what? Would the SA government be restricted from using Google in favor of using Yahoo for search?Just stuff to think about. I don't see why you're arguing so much, if you're for open-source why are you so willing to accept services that are completely controlled by the offering company?
fritzekOct 11, 2009
And thats why MS had made a huge compaign saying "LSE chose Windows Server over Linux for reliability"? C'mon, you must have seen these terrible ads, it was everywhere, even on Digg. <a class="user" href="http://tipotheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/reliabletimes.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://tipotheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/r ...</a>LSE software was a flagship of Microsoft and their partners and that ship sung.
quantumstatejimOct 17, 2009
<a class="user" href="http://tipotheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/reliabletimes.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://tipotheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/r ...</a> I think this basically sums it up. If Microsoft (who actually developed said s**tty software) want to claim it is a wonderful example of how Windows beats Linux I think that people are perfectly entitled to laugh when it fails.
johnnysoftwareOct 26, 2009
@dutchgullder2: I think you need to read the news about the cause of train accidents before you cite train signals as a reason to trust MS-Windows.1)Trainload of Job Corps workers from West Virginia was wiped out by a train accident not far from the nation's capital.Cause of the accident was found to be train signals. The company running the train system was revealed to have no idea what was going on by network television which did a simple thing.They split the screen showing two live feeds: On one side of the screen viewers saw a wrecked train lying on its side. On the other side of the screen, a rep. speaking from the control center for the train system said the news reporters were wrong and their system showed the train was 20 miles away from the location where it had crashed, perfectly fine.Guess which side of the screen the viewers believed?Eight of 11 Train Crash Victims Died of Fire, Not Crash Injuries<a class="user" href="http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N5/traincrash.5w.html" rel="nofollow">http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N5/traincrash.5w.html</a>FTA: "The Washington-bound MARC train failed to stop at a red signal and tore into the side of the Amtrak locomotive as the Amtrak train was changing tracks."2)It is okay to believe that the train signals have spectacular failures. Last calamitous train wreck in D.C. happened only months ago. NTSB cited reason for the fatal crash: signals."Signal Failure Cited in D.C. Train Crash" <a class="user" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/national/main5128298.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/national ...</a>FTA: "Investigators say equipment that is supposed to detect stopped trains in Washington, D.C., failed periodically in the days leading up to a deadly Metro transit train crash. Nine people were killed and more than 70 injured June 22 when a train slammed into another train stopped on the tracks near the Maryland state line."Upon analyzing the cause of the D.C. train crash - the signaling system - the NTSB suddenly got uncomfortable. Because the same system that failed is used around the U.S.<a class="user" href="http://wbztv.com/local/train.signal.warning.2.1202308.html" rel="nofollow">http://wbztv.com/local/train.signal.warning.2.1202 ...</a>FTA: "A federal safety board is urging checks by all transit lines and railroads that use the same signal system that failed to detect a stopped train in a deadly crash in Washington, DC earlier this year.... The NTSB had said previously that equipment that is supposed to detect stopped trains failed periodically in the days leading up to the crash.... The DC Metro also said the system failed to detect trains during tests after the crash. "Ergo, it does not work.Here is more discussion on the train signaling/monitoring system in place at the crash:<a class="user" href="http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=75&amp;t=62770&amp;st=0&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;start=240" rel="nofollow">http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=75& ...</a>A couple of years ago DC commuters were stranded by Windows malware. Down under a railway experienced a similar problem for the same reason. Airlines have have had to switch to manual systems when booking passengers for same reason. Maryland MVA had a day of computer downtime a couple of years ago for the same reason.I doubt London Stock Exchange will be faulted for their decision to switch to Linux.