Coffeehouse Thread

26 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

London Stock Exchange Crash!

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    gadget

    Microsoft needs to step up and defend .NET on this. If you google this everybody is saying it was a Microsoft problem.

    Here a few links.
    http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_suffers_net_crash
    http://www.linux.org/news/2008/09/09/0006.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/09/marketforces

    A lot of them even go as far to say it was a ".NET" crash.  The linux fanbois are coming out of the woodwork with "I told you so" style of comments.

    Microsoft was pretty high profile about Windows Server when LSE switched to Server 2003 and .NET. They need to do some spin control.

  • User profile image
    wisemx

    We can probably blame Nike for every Track and Field loss.

  • User profile image
    stevo_

    I don't think it makes any difference, if my client said.. oh but I heard .NET was pants because of 'this story', it would take me a couple of minutes to give them the real story and let them come to the conclusion theirselves that its not a technology problem..

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    So on the day of the biggest bailout in US history, they decided to carry out a major system upgrade?!

    That's what the weekends are for!


  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    Funny how they never post the follow up story about the fact that it was not MS' technology that was at fault.  Then 6 months from now it would become a "fact" that MS' software was the cause and be brought up endlessly in discussions as proof of how MS sucks. 

    You know, the typical MO, and then they talk about MS' "ethics" and the "FUD comming out of Redmond", lol...

  • User profile image
    Ion Todirel

    BitFlipper said:

    Funny how they never post the follow up story about the fact that it was not MS' technology that was at fault.  Then 6 months from now it would become a "fact" that MS' software was the cause and be brought up endlessly in discussions as proof of how MS sucks. 

    You know, the typical MO, and then they talk about MS' "ethics" and the "FUD comming out of Redmond", lol...

    A fool with a tool is still a fool...

  • User profile image
    wisemx

    Ion Todirel said:
    BitFlipper said:
    *snip*
    A fool with a tool is still a fool...
    http://weblogs.asp.net/jeff/archive/2008/09/11/those-who-can-t-write-blogs-for-washed-up-magazine-s-web-sites.aspx

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    BitFlipper said:

    Funny how they never post the follow up story about the fact that it was not MS' technology that was at fault.  Then 6 months from now it would become a "fact" that MS' software was the cause and be brought up endlessly in discussions as proof of how MS sucks. 

    You know, the typical MO, and then they talk about MS' "ethics" and the "FUD comming out of Redmond", lol...

    Well as far as I can tell, it's all up and running now, so it does sound as if it was some sort of installation glitch.

    I also disagree with the earlier poster. MS doesn't want to get into a custard pie fight with the zealots over this. Find out what happened, put up ONE SINGLE explanation and then say no more about it.

     

  • User profile image
    stun

    From his own Bio page
    http://blogs.computerworld.com/user/137

    Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it!
    Humm....after all these years, that guy has no &%$@#*~ clue whatsoever about what he is writing about. Some trash journalist who writes only to pull traffic to his "well-thought-out-and-researched articles".

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    stun said:
    From his own Bio page
    http://blogs.computerworld.com/user/137
    Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it!
    Humm....after all these years, that guy has no &%$@#*~ clue whatsoever about what he is writing about. Some trash journalist who writes only to pull traffic to his "well-thought-out-and-researched articles".
    Yeah I am getting sick of "news sites" that are just glorified "personal opinions" with no facts, no research.
    the scarry thing is that this junk can get taken as real news....

  • User profile image
    PerfectPhase

    figuerres said:
    stun said:
    *snip*
    Yeah I am getting sick of "news sites" that are just glorified "personal opinions" with no facts, no research.
    the scarry thing is that this junk can get taken as real news....

    It's getting somewhat out of hand of late, and it's not just the smaller players to blame for over hyping everything.  Take the LHC and this, It was pathetic the number of sites and people going around saying the world might end. Sad

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    figuerres said:
    stun said:
    *snip*
    Yeah I am getting sick of "news sites" that are just glorified "personal opinions" with no facts, no research.
    the scarry thing is that this junk can get taken as real news....
    It is ironic that both stories (the false one and the accurate one) came from the same publisher. I think IDG stands to lose more than Microsoft over this matter.

  • User profile image
    Turbodad

    tfraser said:
    figuerres said:
    *snip*
    It is ironic that both stories (the false one and the accurate one) came from the same publisher. I think IDG stands to lose more than Microsoft over this matter.
    It is ironic that both stories (the false one and the accurate one) came from the same publisher.

    And who decides which story is the accurate one and which one is not? You? Do you honestly think anyone involved would admit it was the fault of the new shiny .NET-based TradElect trading system? That would mean admitting fiasco and risk being fired because of botched development and fund mismanagement. Network problems, you say? Then how would you explain Johannesburg Stock Exchange going down at the same time? Perhaps the fact that it also uses the new LSE's trading platform would give you some hints?

    An excellent quote from Slashdot:

    I also, long ago, used to believe that language features could improve software reliability. Nowadays the idea just makes me cackle -- in actuality the universe just invents better idiots.

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    Turbodad said:
    tfraser said:
    *snip*
    It is ironic that both stories (the false one and the accurate one) came from the same publisher.

    And who decides which story is the accurate one and which one is not? You? Do you honestly think anyone involved would admit it was the fault of the new shiny .NET-based TradElect trading system? That would mean admitting fiasco and risk being fired because of botched development and fund mismanagement. Network problems, you say? Then how would you explain Johannesburg Stock Exchange going down at the same time? Perhaps the fact that it also uses the new LSE's trading platform would give you some hints?

    An excellent quote from Slashdot:

    I also, long ago, used to believe that language features could improve software reliability. Nowadays the idea just makes me cackle -- in actuality the universe just invents better idiots.
    It is up to the reader of the articles to decide which one is accurate and which one is not. I made the choice to believe the LSE when they said it was not caused by the TradElect system, rather than assume that they were covering up the real problem just because some random blogger thought this was so.

    How would you explain the JSE crashing at the same time as the LSE without considering network problems? It seems fairly unlikely that both would break down simultaneously and independently of one another when they aren't even managing the same array of stocks.

    I can understand where you are coming from about the LSE not wanting to admit that TradElect was at fault, but it just doesn't seem a likely scenario to me.

    Edit 1: In case you have any doubts about the performance of TradElect, a press release from the LSE states that 'all 100 of the busiest days ever on the London Stock Exchange have now taken place since the introduction of TradElect in June 2007'.

    Edit 2: Another reason why I don't believe the author of the blog post is that he said the '.NET Framework is simply incapable' of maintaining response times under 10 milliseconds, yet another press release describes how TradElect has reduced latency from 140 to 6 milliseconds.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    Turbodad said:
    tfraser said:
    *snip*
    It is ironic that both stories (the false one and the accurate one) came from the same publisher.

    And who decides which story is the accurate one and which one is not? You? Do you honestly think anyone involved would admit it was the fault of the new shiny .NET-based TradElect trading system? That would mean admitting fiasco and risk being fired because of botched development and fund mismanagement. Network problems, you say? Then how would you explain Johannesburg Stock Exchange going down at the same time? Perhaps the fact that it also uses the new LSE's trading platform would give you some hints?

    An excellent quote from Slashdot:

    I also, long ago, used to believe that language features could improve software reliability. Nowadays the idea just makes me cackle -- in actuality the universe just invents better idiots.
    Let's put this another way.  Who should we believe?  The folks who DO know what the cause was, regardless of their invested interest in not disclosing, or the folks who KNOW NOTHING, but have an invested interest in making accusations?

    You can be skeptical of the official story all you want... but making any claims that the other article is anything but pure trash, well, that says a LOT about you.  Unfortunately (sadly), it says a LOT about modern day "journalism" as well.

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    wkempf said:
    Turbodad said:
    *snip*
    Let's put this another way.  Who should we believe?  The folks who DO know what the cause was, regardless of their invested interest in not disclosing, or the folks who KNOW NOTHING, but have an invested interest in making accusations?

    You can be skeptical of the official story all you want... but making any claims that the other article is anything but pure trash, well, that says a LOT about you.  Unfortunately (sadly), it says a LOT about modern day "journalism" as well.

    Unfortunately, Turbodad's logic is what powers sites like Slashdot and many other technology sites.  When it comes to MS, all logic goes out the window and these people would rather believe or make up far out conspiracies as opposed to what comes out afterwards as the truth.  And never, never will they post a follow up story to correct an incorrect story if it will put MS in a better light.

    And as I said before, these same people complain about the "FUD coming out of Redmond", and MS' "ethics".  Now there is a group of people that needs a mirror badly...

    BitFlipper

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    wkempf said:
    Turbodad said:
    *snip*
    Let's put this another way.  Who should we believe?  The folks who DO know what the cause was, regardless of their invested interest in not disclosing, or the folks who KNOW NOTHING, but have an invested interest in making accusations?

    You can be skeptical of the official story all you want... but making any claims that the other article is anything but pure trash, well, that says a LOT about you.  Unfortunately (sadly), it says a LOT about modern day "journalism" as well.
    It is not about who do "we" believe, but who does "people" believe. We are MS supporters, thus, we give MS a benifit of the doubt and open the heart to investigate over. But the rest of the world is going to trust whatever is written online, especially something that's convinient to believe.

    For example, annoying Mac vs PC ads. Vista bad reps. And more.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    wkempf

    magicalclick said:
    wkempf said:
    *snip*
    It is not about who do "we" believe, but who does "people" believe. We are MS supporters, thus, we give MS a benifit of the doubt and open the heart to investigate over. But the rest of the world is going to trust whatever is written online, especially something that's convinient to believe.

    For example, annoying Mac vs PC ads. Vista bad reps. And more.
    See, that's the problem.  "We" aren't Microsoft supporters in my post.  This isn't a "us vs. them" scenario where you pick sides and believe accordingly.  This is a case of applying logic for the readers, and ethics for the "journalists".  The "journalist" was unethical, because he didn't report facts.  He reported a supposition based on his own biases, and wrote the supposition as if it were fact.  Conversely, now that we have an article that reports the facts, people who choose to believe the first article aren't using logic.  If I were anti-Microsoft, the best I could say was that I was suspicious here.  I could NOT claim that the first article was accurate, as Turbodad tried to do.

    This isn't difficult folks.  No matter how much you dislike Microsoft or suspect that .NET could have caused this, you should be condemning the supposed "news" provided in the first article and the "journalist" who wrote it.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.