Linonut espoused:
> * Subway steel peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> My bet is Windows **** the bed.
>>
>> Earlier this year the new airport extension at Heathrow (?) ground to a halt
>> when Linux based computers couldn't handle the load and no baggage could be
>> sorted or delivered.
>
> URL, please.

The claim is quite untrue. There is a fairly detailed analysis here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=681

The real problem at Heathrow Terminal 5 was "Agile Working" combined
with unrealistic timescales, the consquence was that the systems hadn't
been properly tested, but nobody was upwards briefing the risks.

>
>> Are you this naive to think that somehow all computer problems are the fault
>> of the OS? Or do you have enough sense to accept the fact that human errors
>> are also a factor and perhaps some systems were designed without the proper
>> capacity or fail-over provisions. Or is it always software and just software
>> that fails?
>
> My bet is Windows **** the bed.
>
> Let me enjoy my inane little chuckle, dude.
>

Anyone foolish enough to build critical infrastructure on a known
unreliable operating system like Windows rather deserves what they get.
I'm not aware of any other major stock-market taking such a stupid risk.


--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |

In article ,
Mark Kent wrote:
> Linonut espoused:
> > * Subway steel peremptorily fired off this memo:
> >
> >>> My bet is Windows **** the bed.
> >>
> >> Earlier this year the new airport extension at Heathrow (?) ground
> >> to a halt when Linux based computers couldn't handle the load and
> >> no baggage could be sorted or delivered.
> >
> > URL, please.
>
> The claim is quite untrue. There is a fairly detailed analysis here:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=681

There's nothing in there either for or against the claim that the
systems involved were Linux systems.


> The real problem at Heathrow Terminal 5 was "Agile Working" combined
> with unrealistic timescales, the consquence was that the systems hadn't
> been properly tested, but nobody was upwards briefing the risks.

So? If the software was running on Linux systems, then it is a Linux
failure, according to the logic being used with the stock exchange
failure.

....
> Anyone foolish enough to build critical infrastructure on a known
> unreliable operating system like Windows rather deserves what they get.
> I'm not aware of any other major stock-market taking such a stupid risk.

NYSE (clearing and billing systems--switched from COBOL program on an
IBM mainframe to a pair of clustered quad processor Windows servers).

NASDAQ.

Bolsa de Valores do Estado de Sao Paulo. (That's the largest stock
exchange in Latin America).

--
--Tim Smith