On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> About that London Stock Exchange IT failure
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | All of which should have you wonder what Linux has to do with any of this -
> | Microsoft’s headline, you’ll recall said that the LSE picked Windows over
> | Linux for reliability.
> |
> | The answer is that Linux has nothing to do with any of this: Microsoft simply
> | hung an anti-Linux label on a very carefully worded story about a pair of
> | committed Microsoft partners, HP and Accenture, getting together with
> | Microsoft to sell rather simple technology to a willing customer - and
> | neither Linux nor Solaris is mentioned anywhere in the text.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1242
>
Interesting article by Paul Murphy. Your quote is from his article a
couple of years ago. He says this about the recent crash:
"So now the chickens are coming home and the question is, why? Are
Microsoft’s dot.net technologies so inherently unreliable it’s simply
absurd to expect them to work when volume changes dramatically and
performance pressure mounts, or is there something deeper going on?
My vote goes for a combination of both: second rate technology
combining with a problem obvious in both the decision process and
Microsoft’s decision to brag about this install on its anti-Linux
site."
|
|
