<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_03_1216250</id>
	<title>London Stock Exchange To Abandon Windows</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246627440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BBCWatcher writes <i>"Computerworld's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that the <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/london\_stock\_exchange\_to\_abandon\_failed\_windows\_platform">London Stock Exchange is abandoning its Microsoft Windows-based trading platform</a>: 'Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE's Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day .... Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect ...'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBCWatcher writes " Computerworld 's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that the London Stock Exchange is abandoning its Microsoft Windows-based trading platform : 'Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE 's Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day .... Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect ... ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBCWatcher writes "Computerworld's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that the London Stock Exchange is abandoning its Microsoft Windows-based trading platform: 'Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE's Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day .... Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect ...'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573477</id>
	<title>Re:Mulitple Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the fundamental problem here is that the LSE outsourced their entire business! Surely their #1 function in the world is to build and run a trading platform? How on earth do these people think they can do that without actually having the capability to do the work in house? Dumb Dumb Dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the fundamental problem here is that the LSE outsourced their entire business !
Surely their # 1 function in the world is to build and run a trading platform ?
How on earth do these people think they can do that without actually having the capability to do the work in house ?
Dumb Dumb Dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the fundamental problem here is that the LSE outsourced their entire business!
Surely their #1 function in the world is to build and run a trading platform?
How on earth do these people think they can do that without actually having the capability to do the work in house?
Dumb Dumb Dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572235</id>
	<title>The UK and Windows</title>
	<author>wing03</author>
	<datestamp>1246639080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't know about the LSE adopting windows.  But we can see here the problems that came of it.

I remember a story about the UK navy using Windows to power their battleships and all the flak that I and everyone thought would happen when push comes to shove.  Anyone know how that turned out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know about the LSE adopting windows .
But we can see here the problems that came of it .
I remember a story about the UK navy using Windows to power their battleships and all the flak that I and everyone thought would happen when push comes to shove .
Anyone know how that turned out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know about the LSE adopting windows.
But we can see here the problems that came of it.
I remember a story about the UK navy using Windows to power their battleships and all the flak that I and everyone thought would happen when push comes to shove.
Anyone know how that turned out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576349</id>
	<title>Re:Mulitple Problems</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1246626420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There seems to be some blinders being worn as to what other organizations that have intense processing requirements with tight time constraints have chosen (Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc., not to mention the other exchanges)
</p><p>
The majors choose bsd, linux, or solaris.  So LSE chose windows.
</p><p>
Windows is a good choice for word processing on the desktop, otherwise...   What were the managers thinking?  It had to be a case of warm and fuzzies, management groupthink (and maybe kickbacks) trumping over technical analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be some blinders being worn as to what other organizations that have intense processing requirements with tight time constraints have chosen ( Amazon , Google , Yahoo , etc. , not to mention the other exchanges ) The majors choose bsd , linux , or solaris .
So LSE chose windows .
Windows is a good choice for word processing on the desktop , otherwise... What were the managers thinking ?
It had to be a case of warm and fuzzies , management groupthink ( and maybe kickbacks ) trumping over technical analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There seems to be some blinders being worn as to what other organizations that have intense processing requirements with tight time constraints have chosen (Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc., not to mention the other exchanges)

The majors choose bsd, linux, or solaris.
So LSE chose windows.
Windows is a good choice for word processing on the desktop, otherwise...   What were the managers thinking?
It had to be a case of warm and fuzzies, management groupthink (and maybe kickbacks) trumping over technical analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007</id>
	<title>Two years worth of use</title>
	<author>Jerky McNaughty</author>
	<datestamp>1246632000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the industry, so I have a little more background on this. They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years. It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture. Other reasons why the system sucks: It can only handle about 10,000 orders/second, and has latency numbers that are incredibly high (5 milliseconds+).</p><p>Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well.</p><p>TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the industry , so I have a little more background on this .
They spent about 40M GBP building the system , and it 's only been used for two years .
It was ( entirely ?
) outsourced to Accenture .
Other reasons why the system sucks : It can only handle about 10,000 orders/second , and has latency numbers that are incredibly high ( 5 milliseconds + ) .Looking at other exchanges , there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10 + years while scaling quite well.TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the industry, so I have a little more background on this.
They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years.
It was (entirely?
) outsourced to Accenture.
Other reasons why the system sucks: It can only handle about 10,000 orders/second, and has latency numbers that are incredibly high (5 milliseconds+).Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well.TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578877</id>
	<title>trouble? turn off anti-virus, now!</title>
	<author>MikePlacid</author>
	<datestamp>1246703700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;It's not Windows vs Linux.<br>&gt;It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.</p><p>Bank is having problems with its IVRs (strange slowdown in the software). The first thing they do in troubleshooting is... You can guess, don't be shy... R-r-right: they turn off their anti-virus! (Real problem was: logging system was adding 3 new files per minute, not per second! - into the same directory, Windows can't handle such an abuse for long).</p><p>But think about it: trouble? turn off antivirus, now!</p><p>Do you see the picture? You can't run mission critical applications WITHOUT anti-virus on Windows: too risky. And you can't run mission critical applications on Windows WITH anti-virus: the anti-virus will cause you problems sooner than later.</p><p>So, you can write a better application for Windows than some application for Linux, sure. But you will not have a platform to run it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's not Windows vs Linux. &gt; It 's TradElect vs MarketPrizm , which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.Bank is having problems with its IVRs ( strange slowdown in the software ) .
The first thing they do in troubleshooting is... You can guess , do n't be shy... R-r-right : they turn off their anti-virus !
( Real problem was : logging system was adding 3 new files per minute , not per second !
- into the same directory , Windows ca n't handle such an abuse for long ) .But think about it : trouble ?
turn off antivirus , now ! Do you see the picture ?
You ca n't run mission critical applications WITHOUT anti-virus on Windows : too risky .
And you ca n't run mission critical applications on Windows WITH anti-virus : the anti-virus will cause you problems sooner than later.So , you can write a better application for Windows than some application for Linux , sure .
But you will not have a platform to run it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;It's not Windows vs Linux.&gt;It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.Bank is having problems with its IVRs (strange slowdown in the software).
The first thing they do in troubleshooting is... You can guess, don't be shy... R-r-right: they turn off their anti-virus!
(Real problem was: logging system was adding 3 new files per minute, not per second!
- into the same directory, Windows can't handle such an abuse for long).But think about it: trouble?
turn off antivirus, now!Do you see the picture?
You can't run mission critical applications WITHOUT anti-virus on Windows: too risky.
And you can't run mission critical applications on Windows WITH anti-virus: the anti-virus will cause you problems sooner than later.So, you can write a better application for Windows than some application for Linux, sure.
But you will not have a platform to run it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573223</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1246645260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``I mean, if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves can't make a Windows-based framework perform, who can?''</p><p>As an interesting side note, Accenture is one of the few companies who have invited me for a job interview but decided I wasn't right for the job. They told me I was not the kind of person they were looking for - too much of a techie whereas they were looking for a more business-type person.</p><p>So, a possible answer to your question who could make a Windows-based framework perform<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... perhaps a firm that goes more for the technically best solution could have. I don't know if Accenture typically does so, but I know it is pretty uncommon in the business world - there are simply too many constraints that have nothing to do with technical excellence. And if they turn down people who focus too much on the technology rather than on the business side of things, that does make me think they lean more towards the other constraints than towards technical excellence. Not my choice of company if I wanted a high-performance, high-availability system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` I mean , if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves ca n't make a Windows-based framework perform , who can ?
''As an interesting side note , Accenture is one of the few companies who have invited me for a job interview but decided I was n't right for the job .
They told me I was not the kind of person they were looking for - too much of a techie whereas they were looking for a more business-type person.So , a possible answer to your question who could make a Windows-based framework perform ... perhaps a firm that goes more for the technically best solution could have .
I do n't know if Accenture typically does so , but I know it is pretty uncommon in the business world - there are simply too many constraints that have nothing to do with technical excellence .
And if they turn down people who focus too much on the technology rather than on the business side of things , that does make me think they lean more towards the other constraints than towards technical excellence .
Not my choice of company if I wanted a high-performance , high-availability system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``I mean, if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves can't make a Windows-based framework perform, who can?
''As an interesting side note, Accenture is one of the few companies who have invited me for a job interview but decided I wasn't right for the job.
They told me I was not the kind of person they were looking for - too much of a techie whereas they were looking for a more business-type person.So, a possible answer to your question who could make a Windows-based framework perform ... perhaps a firm that goes more for the technically best solution could have.
I don't know if Accenture typically does so, but I know it is pretty uncommon in the business world - there are simply too many constraints that have nothing to do with technical excellence.
And if they turn down people who focus too much on the technology rather than on the business side of things, that does make me think they lean more towards the other constraints than towards technical excellence.
Not my choice of company if I wanted a high-performance, high-availability system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572171</id>
	<title>are you fucking blind ?</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1246638780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the <strong>development</strong>, <strong>roll-out</strong>, and <strong>implementation</strong> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28571163" title="slashdot.org">processes</a> [slashdot.org], <strong>Microsoft worked closely</strong> with the <strong>London Stock Exchange</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the development , roll-out , and implementation processes [ slashdot.org ] , Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes [slashdot.org], Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576569</id>
	<title>general dev/admin incompetence</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1246628220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... will bring any platform to its knees.  From the article, the speculation is that it was "TradElect" that was the problem, not windows, and that is not confirmed.
<p>
Microsoft annoys me as much as the next guy, but blame where blame is due please...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... will bring any platform to its knees .
From the article , the speculation is that it was " TradElect " that was the problem , not windows , and that is not confirmed .
Microsoft annoys me as much as the next guy , but blame where blame is due please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... will bring any platform to its knees.
From the article, the speculation is that it was "TradElect" that was the problem, not windows, and that is not confirmed.
Microsoft annoys me as much as the next guy, but blame where blame is due please...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571735</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1246636320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always believed that Microsoft don't really <i>get</i> mission critical software so I'm surprised they got the contract. My experience with their OSs suggests that time and time again they fail to get the basics right or that things just work superficially. They cover this up by submerging it in a slopping sea of unwanted bloaty features.</p><p>What this implies is that they must have damned good sales executives to overcome the word on the street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always believed that Microsoft do n't really get mission critical software so I 'm surprised they got the contract .
My experience with their OSs suggests that time and time again they fail to get the basics right or that things just work superficially .
They cover this up by submerging it in a slopping sea of unwanted bloaty features.What this implies is that they must have damned good sales executives to overcome the word on the street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always believed that Microsoft don't really get mission critical software so I'm surprised they got the contract.
My experience with their OSs suggests that time and time again they fail to get the basics right or that things just work superficially.
They cover this up by submerging it in a slopping sea of unwanted bloaty features.What this implies is that they must have damned good sales executives to overcome the word on the street.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572649</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>haifastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1246641900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not Windows vs Linux.</p><p>It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.</p></div><p>Thank you. Some people canot grasp that businesses and individuals run applications, and that the OS is just a means to run applications. The OS doesn't run my app? I'll find one that does.</p><p>That is exactly why the Linux fanbois need to embrace Photoshop, Solidworks, and other proprietary applications on their OS of choice. The year of the Linux Desktop is in Adobe's hands.</p><p>(posted from Kubuntu)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux.It 's TradElect vs MarketPrizm , which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.Thank you .
Some people canot grasp that businesses and individuals run applications , and that the OS is just a means to run applications .
The OS does n't run my app ?
I 'll find one that does.That is exactly why the Linux fanbois need to embrace Photoshop , Solidworks , and other proprietary applications on their OS of choice .
The year of the Linux Desktop is in Adobe 's hands .
( posted from Kubuntu )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.Thank you.
Some people canot grasp that businesses and individuals run applications, and that the OS is just a means to run applications.
The OS doesn't run my app?
I'll find one that does.That is exactly why the Linux fanbois need to embrace Photoshop, Solidworks, and other proprietary applications on their OS of choice.
The year of the Linux Desktop is in Adobe's hands.
(posted from Kubuntu)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28579073</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>sygin</author>
	<datestamp>1246707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rm -R<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/TradeElect<br>rm -R<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Windows</p><p>mkdir<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Linux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rm -R /TradeElectrm -R /Windowsmkdir /Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rm -R /TradeElectrm -R /Windowsmkdir /Linux</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571449</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246634640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There still are some documents from Microsoft detailing how the system was intended. Enjoy, before LSE looses its status as case study.</p><p>http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=200042</p><p>mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/windowsserversystem/facts/videos/LSE\_CaseStudy\_Rev\_750k.wmv</p><p>http://switch.atdmt.com/action/FY07\_Linux\_LSE\_Download (already gone)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There still are some documents from Microsoft detailing how the system was intended .
Enjoy , before LSE looses its status as case study.http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 200042mms : //wm.microsoft.com/ms/windowsserversystem/facts/videos/LSE \ _CaseStudy \ _Rev \ _750k.wmvhttp : //switch.atdmt.com/action/FY07 \ _Linux \ _LSE \ _Download ( already gone )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There still are some documents from Microsoft detailing how the system was intended.
Enjoy, before LSE looses its status as case study.http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=200042mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/windowsserversystem/facts/videos/LSE\_CaseStudy\_Rev\_750k.wmvhttp://switch.atdmt.com/action/FY07\_Linux\_LSE\_Download (already gone)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572415</id>
	<title>Mulitple Problems</title>
	<author>awol</author>
	<datestamp>1246640340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was involved  in discussions (and more) with the LSE before (during but not so much) and after they decided to select Microsoft / Accenture / India / Outsourcing as the path for their solution and I know some of the key decision makers. Under the Microsoft umbrella, they were significantly influenced by the resources Microsoft was willing to commit to making the project work despite the newness of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET as an ifrastructure.</p><p>It is important to remember where the LSE was before the TradeElect project, they had completely outsourced their platform to Accenture, the amount they spent per annum on keeping that platform up and running were phenomenal, an order of magnitude more than some of our clients were spending and they (our clients) were running much higher performance systems. TradeElect was designed to decrease these costs without compromising the "I don't lose sleep at night worryin about the systems" position of senior managers. I firmly believed it was a mistake to believe that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET at the heart of the platform would meet the requirements of an exchange trading platform.</p><p>I have no real issue with Windows as the OS under the platform, really for a trading system the OS is providing a TCP stack and some IPC and thats about it. Everything else and the vast majority of the bottlenecks are in your application stack, whether it be tools or application code you are writing for your specific problem domain. Although one might argue that the Microsoft IPC tools can be argued as "weak/complicated".</p><p>It will be interesting to see which people the LSE use to provide the analysis of which way to jump with this decision. Too many very senior folk were involved all the way through the TradeElect project for heads to roll, but it will be interesting to watch who says what when the final decision of what to do is announced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was involved in discussions ( and more ) with the LSE before ( during but not so much ) and after they decided to select Microsoft / Accenture / India / Outsourcing as the path for their solution and I know some of the key decision makers .
Under the Microsoft umbrella , they were significantly influenced by the resources Microsoft was willing to commit to making the project work despite the newness of .NET as an ifrastructure.It is important to remember where the LSE was before the TradeElect project , they had completely outsourced their platform to Accenture , the amount they spent per annum on keeping that platform up and running were phenomenal , an order of magnitude more than some of our clients were spending and they ( our clients ) were running much higher performance systems .
TradeElect was designed to decrease these costs without compromising the " I do n't lose sleep at night worryin about the systems " position of senior managers .
I firmly believed it was a mistake to believe that .NET at the heart of the platform would meet the requirements of an exchange trading platform.I have no real issue with Windows as the OS under the platform , really for a trading system the OS is providing a TCP stack and some IPC and thats about it .
Everything else and the vast majority of the bottlenecks are in your application stack , whether it be tools or application code you are writing for your specific problem domain .
Although one might argue that the Microsoft IPC tools can be argued as " weak/complicated " .It will be interesting to see which people the LSE use to provide the analysis of which way to jump with this decision .
Too many very senior folk were involved all the way through the TradeElect project for heads to roll , but it will be interesting to watch who says what when the final decision of what to do is announced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was involved  in discussions (and more) with the LSE before (during but not so much) and after they decided to select Microsoft / Accenture / India / Outsourcing as the path for their solution and I know some of the key decision makers.
Under the Microsoft umbrella, they were significantly influenced by the resources Microsoft was willing to commit to making the project work despite the newness of .NET as an ifrastructure.It is important to remember where the LSE was before the TradeElect project, they had completely outsourced their platform to Accenture, the amount they spent per annum on keeping that platform up and running were phenomenal, an order of magnitude more than some of our clients were spending and they (our clients) were running much higher performance systems.
TradeElect was designed to decrease these costs without compromising the "I don't lose sleep at night worryin about the systems" position of senior managers.
I firmly believed it was a mistake to believe that .NET at the heart of the platform would meet the requirements of an exchange trading platform.I have no real issue with Windows as the OS under the platform, really for a trading system the OS is providing a TCP stack and some IPC and thats about it.
Everything else and the vast majority of the bottlenecks are in your application stack, whether it be tools or application code you are writing for your specific problem domain.
Although one might argue that the Microsoft IPC tools can be argued as "weak/complicated".It will be interesting to see which people the LSE use to provide the analysis of which way to jump with this decision.
Too many very senior folk were involved all the way through the TradeElect project for heads to roll, but it will be interesting to watch who says what when the final decision of what to do is announced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>ForexCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1246633320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's not Windows vs Linux.</i>
<br> <br>
No, it's Microsoft vs Linux.
<br> <br>
Microsoft had full control over the stack of tools they used (Windows Server 2003, C#/.NET, Sql Server 2000, I believe) and they invested a lot of resources, both technical and marketing, into making this system run.  It was suppose to show that Microsoft software could handle this kind of system as well or better then *nix.  And it was a failure.
<br> <br>
See <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/uk/getthefacts/lse.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Get the Facts</a> [microsoft.com] for more details.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux .
No , it 's Microsoft vs Linux .
Microsoft had full control over the stack of tools they used ( Windows Server 2003 , C # /.NET , Sql Server 2000 , I believe ) and they invested a lot of resources , both technical and marketing , into making this system run .
It was suppose to show that Microsoft software could handle this kind of system as well or better then * nix .
And it was a failure .
See Get the Facts [ microsoft.com ] for more details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.
No, it's Microsoft vs Linux.
Microsoft had full control over the stack of tools they used (Windows Server 2003, C#/.NET, Sql Server 2000, I believe) and they invested a lot of resources, both technical and marketing, into making this system run.
It was suppose to show that Microsoft software could handle this kind of system as well or better then *nix.
And it was a failure.
See Get the Facts [microsoft.com] for more details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's not Windows vs Linux.</i></p><p>You say it's not Windows' fault and I agree--it wasn't an OS problem (per se), but rather an application issue. In actuality, it's Microsoft's fault; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft. With the requirements not being met that it be a high-performance, real-time application and the fact that they were unable to deliver even with MS being involved made them lose faith in the company and their products (.NET, Windows Server, SQL server).</p><p>I'd say that if MS wasn't involved in the development of the app that it's possible that they would scrap the app rather than the OS/framework, but if I was in that position, I'd do the same thing.</p><p>It's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven, successful system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux.You say it 's not Windows ' fault and I agree--it was n't an OS problem ( per se ) , but rather an application issue .
In actuality , it 's Microsoft 's fault ; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft .
With the requirements not being met that it be a high-performance , real-time application and the fact that they were unable to deliver even with MS being involved made them lose faith in the company and their products ( .NET , Windows Server , SQL server ) .I 'd say that if MS was n't involved in the development of the app that it 's possible that they would scrap the app rather than the OS/framework , but if I was in that position , I 'd do the same thing.It 's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven , successful system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.You say it's not Windows' fault and I agree--it wasn't an OS problem (per se), but rather an application issue.
In actuality, it's Microsoft's fault; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft.
With the requirements not being met that it be a high-performance, real-time application and the fact that they were unable to deliver even with MS being involved made them lose faith in the company and their products (.NET, Windows Server, SQL server).I'd say that if MS wasn't involved in the development of the app that it's possible that they would scrap the app rather than the OS/framework, but if I was in that position, I'd do the same thing.It's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven, successful system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582303</id>
	<title>PROOFS of SQLServer 2005 99.999\% uptime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246699260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For \_Sprocket\_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", boys:</p><p>----</p><p> <b>FUJIFILM</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p> <b>"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require."</b> - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company</p><p>----</p><p> <b>XEROX</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133</a> [microsoft.com] </p><p> <b>"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities."</b> - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services</p><p>----</p><p> <b>ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789" title="cwhonors.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789</a> [cwhonors.org] </p><p>"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"</p><p>----</p><p> <b>MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:</b> </p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year"</b>,says Catassi. <b>"WithSQLServer 2005 weve<br>enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"</b> </p><p>----</p><p>AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? <b>NASDAQ EVIDENCE</b> (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS):</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System</b> </p><p>5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Fixed Income Trade and Positioning</p><p>System running on SQL Server 2005<br>30\% performance increase,<br>capacity to process 1,000 trades / second</p><p>5TB of data on SQL Server 2005<br> <b>99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth</b> </p><p>Web solution managing millions of devices,<br>7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptime<br>Built with Visual Studio 2005,<br>running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Integrated with Visual Studio and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET<br>Integrated development &amp;<br>debugging experience<br>Execution location &amp;<br>programming language choice</p><p>SQL Server Service Broker<br>Asynchronous queuing for<br>highly available applications<br>Reliable messaging for scale out</p><p>CacheSync<br>High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps</p><p>XML Data Type<br>Native XML support in the DB</p><p>----</p><p> <b>Ho</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For \ _Sprocket \ _ , k10quant , cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all , time to " eat your words " , boys : ---- FUJIFILM = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : YsNIT18PBTEJ : download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm \ _SQLServerCaseStudy.doc + \ % 22SQL + Server + 2005 \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 64&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] " This is a mission-critical project , which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability .
Stoppages are just not acceptable .
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require .
" - Michito Watanabe , President and Managing Director , Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49133 [ microsoft.com ] " SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application .
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application , we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities .
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager , Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp ? NominationID = 789 [ cwhonors.org ] " By migrating to the Fujitsu platform , Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability " ---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : VgxcewyAjkgJ : download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf + \ % 22SQLServer \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 19&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] " MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek , and 365 days a year " ,says Catassi .
" WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability " ----AND , LAST BUT NOT LEAST ?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE ( finally ) of 99.999 \ % uptime ( for MDDS ) : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : MjTjqPVpm5YJ : https : //partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115 + \ % 22Trusted + Platform \ % 22 + and + \ % 22SQL + Server \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second , 100K queries / day , running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530 \ % performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999 \ % uptime , scalability for 30 \ % annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day , with 99.999 \ % uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance ASP.NET 2.0 appsXML Data TypeNative XML support in the DB---- Ho</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For \_Sprocket\_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", boys:---- FUJIFILM = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]  "This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability.
Stoppages are just not acceptable.
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require.
" - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com]  "SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application.
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities.
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org] "By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:  http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] "MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi.
"WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability" ----AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS): http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530\% performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance ASP.NET 2.0 appsXML Data TypeNative XML support in the DB---- Ho</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574411</id>
	<title>Don't worry. C# and Mono will save the day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246653780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the replacement system uses C# and Mono there is still hope for Microsoft!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the replacement system uses C # and Mono there is still hope for Microsoft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the replacement system uses C# and Mono there is still hope for Microsoft!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246633140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's not Windows vs Linux.</p><p>It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then again, <a href="http://www.onwindows.com/Articles/LSE-TradElect-system-goes-live/843/Default.aspx" title="onwindows.com">TradElect was written by Microsoft and Accenture</a> [onwindows.com], so Microsoft where heavily involved in this project themselves - not just from the perspective of Windows only.</p><p>In addition, they touted this in their "Get The Facts" anti-Linux campaign, so I'm sorry, but pointing out this failure and blaming it on Microsoft (though perhaps not the Windows OS as such) is fair game IMO.</p><p>I mean, if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves can't make a Windows-based framework perform, who can?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux.It 's TradElect vs MarketPrizm , which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.Then again , TradElect was written by Microsoft and Accenture [ onwindows.com ] , so Microsoft where heavily involved in this project themselves - not just from the perspective of Windows only.In addition , they touted this in their " Get The Facts " anti-Linux campaign , so I 'm sorry , but pointing out this failure and blaming it on Microsoft ( though perhaps not the Windows OS as such ) is fair game IMO.I mean , if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves ca n't make a Windows-based framework perform , who can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.Then again, TradElect was written by Microsoft and Accenture [onwindows.com], so Microsoft where heavily involved in this project themselves - not just from the perspective of Windows only.In addition, they touted this in their "Get The Facts" anti-Linux campaign, so I'm sorry, but pointing out this failure and blaming it on Microsoft (though perhaps not the Windows OS as such) is fair game IMO.I mean, if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves can't make a Windows-based framework perform, who can?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28580291</id>
	<title>Couple of Quick Points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, anyone else notice the obvious issue of this application STILL USING SQL 2000, which reached end of regular maintenance nearly a year ago (Aug 4, 2008)?  Seems to me that if this system was structured such that they couldn't easily move to SQL 2005 with Microsoft on the team building this solution, then it may not just be about the stack, but what was done to the technical platform (DBMS, OS, servers, even SAN) to tweak it to reach the performance service levels required.  In short, it really is as much about the platform as the application - for this kind of system, you really can't separate the two.  As such, a key ownership issue for anyone using MS software as their technical platform is the software lifecycle and maintenance requirement.  I can certainly understand why a "2007 go-live" of this system meant they couldn't move to SQL 2005 at that time; but inherent in selecting SQLServer as the DBMS here was the acceptance by the LSE of the MS software cycle - and the need to upgrade in the next 24 months or so.  SQL Server 2000 is now an 8 1/2 year old product; even with extended maintenance, I would not view it as  suitable for use with something as important as a Stock Exchange.  At the very least, I wonder if a combination of Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005 for x64-based servers might be better able to address some of the performance issues here.  Finally, I also wonder how much the LSE likes "Patch Tuesdays", especially when Microsoft releases OS and SQL Server (and even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET) patches with "critical" status - meaning apply immediately.  I bet that's lots of fun.</p><p>Secondly, I wonder about this being "a system of one".  While Linux may not be quite up to the various commercial UNIX platforms in terms of robustness (don't shoot me; this is based on experience, and the gap is shrinking), using Linux and the tools common to both Linux and UNIX platforms - which have a very long (15-25 years) and evolved history together - means there are likely other solutions that are comparable to a Stock Exchange that could be used for "lessons learned" and leveraging for an understanding of how to build this application right.  In this case, however, we are talking about a fairly new technical stack - Windows 2003 Server (2004 stability), SQL 2000 DBMS (2002 stability),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (how many versions since initial release? 3.5 now?), etc. - being used to create a new ground-up custom design.  So choosing the MS stack for this also leads to a "vertical isolation" issue - given the  relative newness of the tools, and the limited number of similar examples to draw from, does the choice of a platform here also make it more likely that addressing problems that come up would be more difficult?  I know - a "chicken vs egg" conundrum - but this is a real concern, and one of the reasons why MS should share responsibility here with Accenture.  Based on reading the 2007 press release, the LSE was apparently to become an example to the world of how the MS stack and commodity (HP) WIntel platforms could do the job that used to require Mainframes, VAXes, Tandems, or big UNIX servers.  But as an earlier post has suggested, mainframes still exist for a good reason - 40+ years of experience running these kinds of workloads for specific industries requiring very high transaction volumes.  I am not saying the MS technical stack won't eventually be able to run this kind of workload, but you can't shortcut the process of learning what it takes to achieve the performance and robustness required here, at least in my opinion.</p><p>For example, using SQL Server insures that you MUST use Windows Server as your OS in any event; Oracle, DB2, or even a custom solution could be placed on a number of different platforms that might have provided the ability to create a "hybrid" solution of Windows/.NET front-ends running against a UNIX/Linux (Oracle RAC?) or even Mainframe/DB2 back-end.  So no using "the best of both worlds" either.  This means having to learn the hard way how to scale up a SQL Server 2000 DBM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , anyone else notice the obvious issue of this application STILL USING SQL 2000 , which reached end of regular maintenance nearly a year ago ( Aug 4 , 2008 ) ?
Seems to me that if this system was structured such that they could n't easily move to SQL 2005 with Microsoft on the team building this solution , then it may not just be about the stack , but what was done to the technical platform ( DBMS , OS , servers , even SAN ) to tweak it to reach the performance service levels required .
In short , it really is as much about the platform as the application - for this kind of system , you really ca n't separate the two .
As such , a key ownership issue for anyone using MS software as their technical platform is the software lifecycle and maintenance requirement .
I can certainly understand why a " 2007 go-live " of this system meant they could n't move to SQL 2005 at that time ; but inherent in selecting SQLServer as the DBMS here was the acceptance by the LSE of the MS software cycle - and the need to upgrade in the next 24 months or so .
SQL Server 2000 is now an 8 1/2 year old product ; even with extended maintenance , I would not view it as suitable for use with something as important as a Stock Exchange .
At the very least , I wonder if a combination of Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005 for x64-based servers might be better able to address some of the performance issues here .
Finally , I also wonder how much the LSE likes " Patch Tuesdays " , especially when Microsoft releases OS and SQL Server ( and even .NET ) patches with " critical " status - meaning apply immediately .
I bet that 's lots of fun.Secondly , I wonder about this being " a system of one " .
While Linux may not be quite up to the various commercial UNIX platforms in terms of robustness ( do n't shoot me ; this is based on experience , and the gap is shrinking ) , using Linux and the tools common to both Linux and UNIX platforms - which have a very long ( 15-25 years ) and evolved history together - means there are likely other solutions that are comparable to a Stock Exchange that could be used for " lessons learned " and leveraging for an understanding of how to build this application right .
In this case , however , we are talking about a fairly new technical stack - Windows 2003 Server ( 2004 stability ) , SQL 2000 DBMS ( 2002 stability ) , .NET ( how many versions since initial release ?
3.5 now ?
) , etc .
- being used to create a new ground-up custom design .
So choosing the MS stack for this also leads to a " vertical isolation " issue - given the relative newness of the tools , and the limited number of similar examples to draw from , does the choice of a platform here also make it more likely that addressing problems that come up would be more difficult ?
I know - a " chicken vs egg " conundrum - but this is a real concern , and one of the reasons why MS should share responsibility here with Accenture .
Based on reading the 2007 press release , the LSE was apparently to become an example to the world of how the MS stack and commodity ( HP ) WIntel platforms could do the job that used to require Mainframes , VAXes , Tandems , or big UNIX servers .
But as an earlier post has suggested , mainframes still exist for a good reason - 40 + years of experience running these kinds of workloads for specific industries requiring very high transaction volumes .
I am not saying the MS technical stack wo n't eventually be able to run this kind of workload , but you ca n't shortcut the process of learning what it takes to achieve the performance and robustness required here , at least in my opinion.For example , using SQL Server insures that you MUST use Windows Server as your OS in any event ; Oracle , DB2 , or even a custom solution could be placed on a number of different platforms that might have provided the ability to create a " hybrid " solution of Windows/.NET front-ends running against a UNIX/Linux ( Oracle RAC ?
) or even Mainframe/DB2 back-end .
So no using " the best of both worlds " either .
This means having to learn the hard way how to scale up a SQL Server 2000 DBM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, anyone else notice the obvious issue of this application STILL USING SQL 2000, which reached end of regular maintenance nearly a year ago (Aug 4, 2008)?
Seems to me that if this system was structured such that they couldn't easily move to SQL 2005 with Microsoft on the team building this solution, then it may not just be about the stack, but what was done to the technical platform (DBMS, OS, servers, even SAN) to tweak it to reach the performance service levels required.
In short, it really is as much about the platform as the application - for this kind of system, you really can't separate the two.
As such, a key ownership issue for anyone using MS software as their technical platform is the software lifecycle and maintenance requirement.
I can certainly understand why a "2007 go-live" of this system meant they couldn't move to SQL 2005 at that time; but inherent in selecting SQLServer as the DBMS here was the acceptance by the LSE of the MS software cycle - and the need to upgrade in the next 24 months or so.
SQL Server 2000 is now an 8 1/2 year old product; even with extended maintenance, I would not view it as  suitable for use with something as important as a Stock Exchange.
At the very least, I wonder if a combination of Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005 for x64-based servers might be better able to address some of the performance issues here.
Finally, I also wonder how much the LSE likes "Patch Tuesdays", especially when Microsoft releases OS and SQL Server (and even .NET) patches with "critical" status - meaning apply immediately.
I bet that's lots of fun.Secondly, I wonder about this being "a system of one".
While Linux may not be quite up to the various commercial UNIX platforms in terms of robustness (don't shoot me; this is based on experience, and the gap is shrinking), using Linux and the tools common to both Linux and UNIX platforms - which have a very long (15-25 years) and evolved history together - means there are likely other solutions that are comparable to a Stock Exchange that could be used for "lessons learned" and leveraging for an understanding of how to build this application right.
In this case, however, we are talking about a fairly new technical stack - Windows 2003 Server (2004 stability), SQL 2000 DBMS (2002 stability), .NET (how many versions since initial release?
3.5 now?
), etc.
- being used to create a new ground-up custom design.
So choosing the MS stack for this also leads to a "vertical isolation" issue - given the  relative newness of the tools, and the limited number of similar examples to draw from, does the choice of a platform here also make it more likely that addressing problems that come up would be more difficult?
I know - a "chicken vs egg" conundrum - but this is a real concern, and one of the reasons why MS should share responsibility here with Accenture.
Based on reading the 2007 press release, the LSE was apparently to become an example to the world of how the MS stack and commodity (HP) WIntel platforms could do the job that used to require Mainframes, VAXes, Tandems, or big UNIX servers.
But as an earlier post has suggested, mainframes still exist for a good reason - 40+ years of experience running these kinds of workloads for specific industries requiring very high transaction volumes.
I am not saying the MS technical stack won't eventually be able to run this kind of workload, but you can't shortcut the process of learning what it takes to achieve the performance and robustness required here, at least in my opinion.For example, using SQL Server insures that you MUST use Windows Server as your OS in any event; Oracle, DB2, or even a custom solution could be placed on a number of different platforms that might have provided the ability to create a "hybrid" solution of Windows/.NET front-ends running against a UNIX/Linux (Oracle RAC?
) or even Mainframe/DB2 back-end.
So no using "the best of both worlds" either.
This means having to learn the hard way how to scale up a SQL Server 2000 DBM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577277</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable.</p></div></blockquote><p>No offense, but if you rely on luck to keep your Linux systems up and stable, I'm glad that you don't work for me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable.No offense , but if you rely on luck to keep your Linux systems up and stable , I 'm glad that you do n't work for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable.No offense, but if you rely on luck to keep your Linux systems up and stable, I'm glad that you don't work for me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571553</id>
	<title>Re:Seems more big bussiness and goverments....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246635360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a little puzzled by the link.</p><p>The list of case studies looks a bit like the Fortune 500 list and then some, I'm not sure how that proves more and more customers are moving away?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little puzzled by the link.The list of case studies looks a bit like the Fortune 500 list and then some , I 'm not sure how that proves more and more customers are moving away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a little puzzled by the link.The list of case studies looks a bit like the Fortune 500 list and then some, I'm not sure how that proves more and more customers are moving away?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573889</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, &amp; speed on Windows, in a high tpm environs, keeping stable &amp; running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!</p></div></blockquote><p>Nothing that you have posted proves that the NASDAQ isn't doing nightly failovers, so that each days trading if running on  freshly rebooted system.   In parts of IBM that are still running servers outside of corporate control it is standard operating procedure to failover to the backup systems before the begining of any major event.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AND , " There ya are " ... Evidence of the possible stability , security , &amp; speed on Windows , in a high tpm environs , keeping stable &amp; running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade + + going strong , acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ ! Nothing that you have posted proves that the NASDAQ is n't doing nightly failovers , so that each days trading if running on freshly rebooted system .
In parts of IBM that are still running servers outside of corporate control it is standard operating procedure to failover to the backup systems before the begining of any major event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, &amp; speed on Windows, in a high tpm environs, keeping stable &amp; running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!Nothing that you have posted proves that the NASDAQ isn't doing nightly failovers, so that each days trading if running on  freshly rebooted system.
In parts of IBM that are still running servers outside of corporate control it is standard operating procedure to failover to the backup systems before the begining of any major event.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574547</id>
	<title>lse - yawn ville</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246611660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked at LSE a whilte back. 50\% permies, 25\% accenture, 25\% contractors (via accenture).  Many inexperienced people from accenture, many grey beards who had been with LSE for 10 or 20 years.  Crippling work hours, fantastic pay. Without a doubt, the best way to describe the people who worked there was 'dull'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at LSE a whilte back .
50 \ % permies , 25 \ % accenture , 25 \ % contractors ( via accenture ) .
Many inexperienced people from accenture , many grey beards who had been with LSE for 10 or 20 years .
Crippling work hours , fantastic pay .
Without a doubt , the best way to describe the people who worked there was 'dull' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at LSE a whilte back.
50\% permies, 25\% accenture, 25\% contractors (via accenture).
Many inexperienced people from accenture, many grey beards who had been with LSE for 10 or 20 years.
Crippling work hours, fantastic pay.
Without a doubt, the best way to describe the people who worked there was 'dull'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572475</id>
	<title>The truth of the matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246640760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that they're reviewing everything at the LSE at the moment, not just software, but headcount etc. Key word is reviewing, which means that the pendulum could swing the other way and they'd use even more MS products since this is all a cost saving exercise. The article has it wrong.<br>And Microsoft was involved in the intial project, from a consultancy perspective as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that they 're reviewing everything at the LSE at the moment , not just software , but headcount etc .
Key word is reviewing , which means that the pendulum could swing the other way and they 'd use even more MS products since this is all a cost saving exercise .
The article has it wrong.And Microsoft was involved in the intial project , from a consultancy perspective as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that they're reviewing everything at the LSE at the moment, not just software, but headcount etc.
Key word is reviewing, which means that the pendulum could swing the other way and they'd use even more MS products since this is all a cost saving exercise.
The article has it wrong.And Microsoft was involved in the intial project, from a consultancy perspective as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576431</id>
	<title>Trusted 4 OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246627140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"NASDAQ wouldn't trust their trading system to Windows."</b> - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)</p></div><p>They surely trusted &amp; did well for reporting though, check THIS out:</p><p><b>We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us,</b> said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Yes, it goes through the Windows stack after it has been processed by the trading system. Which used to run on a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware the year after your MDDS system was installed. I can't find anymore recent info even on the NASDAQ site."</b> by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)</p></div><p>I wonder - <b>does that do the job of being THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?</b> No, doubt it. It does, what IT does.</p><p>(AND? I never once said THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ was the process you state, did I? Nope... show me where I have! Good Luck on that one)</p><p>NASDAQ, so you know?</p><p>LMAO - Is not, lol, like "NaSdAq" (some evil Skynet robot AI single overlord system type stuff) - it's a lot of systems interacting &amp; doing specialized jobs - THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ does the reporting - where the rubber meets the road, to end users (the most important of them all).</p><p>It's a major system of that 99.999\% uptime operation called NASDAQ, as described by NASDAQTRADER in fact, &amp; especially to users...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; No 1 single system in other words, runs the entire show there, &amp; THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ is part of that, a major unique part (especially to users), thus it too is part of that 99.999\% uptime reported of NASDAQ by NASDAQTRADER - because the system(s) you describe do not claim that all by themselves &amp; do not do the job this one does, as a major part no less on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" NASDAQ would n't trust their trading system to Windows .
" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 , @ 12 : 40PM ( # 28572825 ) They surely trusted &amp; did well for reporting though , check THIS out : We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data .
It has worked perfectly for us , said Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ.---- " Yes , it goes through the Windows stack after it has been processed by the trading system .
Which used to run on a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware the year after your MDDS system was installed .
I ca n't find anymore recent info even on the NASDAQ site .
" by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 , @ 12 : 40PM ( # 28572825 ) I wonder - does that do the job of being THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ ?
No , doubt it .
It does , what IT does. ( AND ?
I never once said THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ was the process you state , did I ?
Nope... show me where I have !
Good Luck on that one ) NASDAQ , so you know ? LMAO - Is not , lol , like " NaSdAq " ( some evil Skynet robot AI single overlord system type stuff ) - it 's a lot of systems interacting &amp; doing specialized jobs - THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ does the reporting - where the rubber meets the road , to end users ( the most important of them all ) .It 's a major system of that 99.999 \ % uptime operation called NASDAQ , as described by NASDAQTRADER in fact , &amp; especially to users...APKP.S. = &gt; No 1 single system in other words , runs the entire show there , &amp; THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ is part of that , a major unique part ( especially to users ) , thus it too is part of that 99.999 \ % uptime reported of NASDAQ by NASDAQTRADER - because the system ( s ) you describe do not claim that all by themselves &amp; do not do the job this one does , as a major part no less on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"NASDAQ wouldn't trust their trading system to Windows.
" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)They surely trusted &amp; did well for reporting though, check THIS out:We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data.
It has worked perfectly for us, said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.----"Yes, it goes through the Windows stack after it has been processed by the trading system.
Which used to run on a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware the year after your MDDS system was installed.
I can't find anymore recent info even on the NASDAQ site.
" by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)I wonder - does that do the job of being THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?
No, doubt it.
It does, what IT does.(AND?
I never once said THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ was the process you state, did I?
Nope... show me where I have!
Good Luck on that one)NASDAQ, so you know?LMAO - Is not, lol, like "NaSdAq" (some evil Skynet robot AI single overlord system type stuff) - it's a lot of systems interacting &amp; doing specialized jobs - THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ does the reporting - where the rubber meets the road, to end users (the most important of them all).It's a major system of that 99.999\% uptime operation called NASDAQ, as described by NASDAQTRADER in fact, &amp; especially to users...APKP.S.=&gt; No 1 single system in other words, runs the entire show there, &amp; THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ is part of that, a major unique part (especially to users), thus it too is part of that 99.999\% uptime reported of NASDAQ by NASDAQTRADER - because the system(s) you describe do not claim that all by themselves &amp; do not do the job this one does, as a major part no less on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582591</id>
	<title>It was a network issue...</title>
	<author>crowne</author>
	<datestamp>1246702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love MS bashing as much as the rest of you, however the way I heard it was that it was a network issue.
I work closely with the JSE, Johannesburg Stock Exchange, who happen to run on LSE's infrastructure.
I heard that the root cause had to do with badly handled UDP packets in a cisco router, that had been patched the previous week-end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love MS bashing as much as the rest of you , however the way I heard it was that it was a network issue .
I work closely with the JSE , Johannesburg Stock Exchange , who happen to run on LSE 's infrastructure .
I heard that the root cause had to do with badly handled UDP packets in a cisco router , that had been patched the previous week-end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love MS bashing as much as the rest of you, however the way I heard it was that it was a network issue.
I work closely with the JSE, Johannesburg Stock Exchange, who happen to run on LSE's infrastructure.
I heard that the root cause had to do with badly handled UDP packets in a cisco router, that had been patched the previous week-end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571065</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like a bunch of unknowing</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246632300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the people who post in mainframe articles asking what a mainframe is really useful for these days, here is a case study.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the people who post in mainframe articles asking what a mainframe is really useful for these days , here is a case study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the people who post in mainframe articles asking what a mainframe is really useful for these days, here is a case study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578679</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1246699860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/products-services/connectivity/tradelect/tradelect.htm" title="londonstockexchange.com">http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/products-services/connectivity/tradelect/tradelect.htm</a> [londonstockexchange.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>TradElect is the Exchange's world-beating trading system. It brings unprecedented levels of performance, enhanced functionality and new services to our markets.

</p><p>TradElect allows our customers to trade on one of the fastest, most reliable and technologically advanced equity markets in the world. After the performance upgrades introduced over the last year the trading system delivers and an average round-trip latency of around 4 milliseconds, and a trading Capacity of 18,000 orders/sec.

</p><p>TradElect was part of the Exchange's Technology Roadmap (TRM) project.

</p><p>Borsa Italiana and the London Stock Exchange are currently working to integrate their systems in order to improve the performance, tradability and access across asset classes and markets for all of our customers.</p></div><p>They don't even mention stability. Outstanding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/products-services/connectivity/tradelect/tradelect.htm [ londonstockexchange.com ] : TradElect is the Exchange 's world-beating trading system .
It brings unprecedented levels of performance , enhanced functionality and new services to our markets .
TradElect allows our customers to trade on one of the fastest , most reliable and technologically advanced equity markets in the world .
After the performance upgrades introduced over the last year the trading system delivers and an average round-trip latency of around 4 milliseconds , and a trading Capacity of 18,000 orders/sec .
TradElect was part of the Exchange 's Technology Roadmap ( TRM ) project .
Borsa Italiana and the London Stock Exchange are currently working to integrate their systems in order to improve the performance , tradability and access across asset classes and markets for all of our customers.They do n't even mention stability .
Outstanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/products-services/connectivity/tradelect/tradelect.htm [londonstockexchange.com]:TradElect is the Exchange's world-beating trading system.
It brings unprecedented levels of performance, enhanced functionality and new services to our markets.
TradElect allows our customers to trade on one of the fastest, most reliable and technologically advanced equity markets in the world.
After the performance upgrades introduced over the last year the trading system delivers and an average round-trip latency of around 4 milliseconds, and a trading Capacity of 18,000 orders/sec.
TradElect was part of the Exchange's Technology Roadmap (TRM) project.
Borsa Italiana and the London Stock Exchange are currently working to integrate their systems in order to improve the performance, tradability and access across asset classes and markets for all of our customers.They don't even mention stability.
Outstanding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573869</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all great, but the MDDS is just a reporting system. It does <b>not</b> handle trades.</p><blockquote><div><p>MDDS receives direct feeds from NASDAQ&#226;(TM)s trade reporting system, and collects the data, storing it in SQL Server 2005.  It is then available in real time for queries by market participants, including those using the NASDAQ Workstation, a Web-based tool that connects to NASDAQ trading systems.</p></div></blockquote><p>From the MS Case Study (the only references I could find) found here:</p><p>http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271</p><p>and, "There YA are"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all great , but the MDDS is just a reporting system .
It does not handle trades.MDDS receives direct feeds from NASDAQ   ( TM ) s trade reporting system , and collects the data , storing it in SQL Server 2005 .
It is then available in real time for queries by market participants , including those using the NASDAQ Workstation , a Web-based tool that connects to NASDAQ trading systems.From the MS Case Study ( the only references I could find ) found here : http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49271and , " There YA are "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all great, but the MDDS is just a reporting system.
It does not handle trades.MDDS receives direct feeds from NASDAQâ(TM)s trade reporting system, and collects the data, storing it in SQL Server 2005.
It is then available in real time for queries by market participants, including those using the NASDAQ Workstation, a Web-based tool that connects to NASDAQ trading systems.From the MS Case Study (the only references I could find) found here:http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271and, "There YA are"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583379</id>
	<title>SPROCKET has to "EAT HIS WORDS" &amp; evade questi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246712520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:</p><p>----</p><p> <b>FUJIFILM</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p> <b>"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require."</b> - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company</p><p>----</p><p> <b>XEROX</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133</a> [microsoft.com] </p><p> <b>"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities."</b> - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services</p><p>----</p><p> <b>ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789" title="cwhonors.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789</a> [cwhonors.org] </p><p>"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"</p><p>----</p><p> <b>MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year"</b>,says Catassi. <b>"WithSQLServer 2005 weve<br>enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"</b> </p><p>----</p><p>AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? <b>NASDAQ EVIDENCE</b> (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS):</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System</b> </p><p>5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Fixed Income Trade and Positioning</p><p>System running on SQL Server 2005<br>30\% performance increase,<br>capacity to process 1,000 trades / second</p><p>5TB of data on SQL Server 2005<br> <b>99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth</b> </p><p>Web solution managing millions of devices,<br>7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptime<br>Built with Visual Studio 2005,<br>running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Integrated with Visual Studio and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET<br>Integrated development &amp;<br>debugging experience<br>Execution location &amp;<br>programming language choice</p><p>SQL Server Service Broker<br>Asynchronous queuing for<br>highly available applications<br>Reliable messaging for scale out</p><p>CacheSync<br>High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps</p><p>XML Data Type</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Sprocket ( the troll himself ) , k10quant , cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all , time to " eat your words " , wiseguys : ---- FUJIFILM = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : YsNIT18PBTEJ : download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm \ _SQLServerCaseStudy.doc + \ % 22SQL + Server + 2005 \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 64&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] " This is a mission-critical project , which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability .
Stoppages are just not acceptable .
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require .
" - Michito Watanabe , President and Managing Director , Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49133 [ microsoft.com ] " SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application .
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application , we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities .
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager , Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp ? NominationID = 789 [ cwhonors.org ] " By migrating to the Fujitsu platform , Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability " ---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY : = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : VgxcewyAjkgJ : download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf + \ % 22SQLServer \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 19&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] " MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek , and 365 days a year " ,says Catassi .
" WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability " ----AND , LAST BUT NOT LEAST ?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE ( finally ) of 99.999 \ % uptime ( for MDDS ) : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : MjTjqPVpm5YJ : https : //partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115 + \ % 22Trusted + Platform \ % 22 + and + \ % 22SQL + Server \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second , 100K queries / day , running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530 \ % performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999 \ % uptime , scalability for 30 \ % annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day , with 99.999 \ % uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance ASP.NET 2.0 appsXML Data Type</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:---- FUJIFILM = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]  "This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability.
Stoppages are just not acceptable.
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require.
" - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com]  "SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application.
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities.
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org] "By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] "MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi.
"WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability" ----AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS): http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530\% performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance ASP.NET 2.0 appsXML Data Type</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571863</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246636980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You say it's not Windows' fault and I agree--it wasn't an OS problem (per se), but rather an application issue. In actuality, it's Microsoft's fault; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft.</i></p><p>Being currently an Accenture employee, i find it increidble that the application managed to work at all. Sometimes i wonder if they get tax cuts from hiring incompetent people.</p><p>Sorry i have to post within the shroud of anonymity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say it 's not Windows ' fault and I agree--it was n't an OS problem ( per se ) , but rather an application issue .
In actuality , it 's Microsoft 's fault ; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft.Being currently an Accenture employee , i find it increidble that the application managed to work at all .
Sometimes i wonder if they get tax cuts from hiring incompetent people.Sorry i have to post within the shroud of anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say it's not Windows' fault and I agree--it wasn't an OS problem (per se), but rather an application issue.
In actuality, it's Microsoft's fault; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft.Being currently an Accenture employee, i find it increidble that the application managed to work at all.
Sometimes i wonder if they get tax cuts from hiring incompetent people.Sorry i have to post within the shroud of anonymity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574913</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246614120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Since late 2005..." is not 5++ years.</p><p>It's not even 4 years.</p><p>Been doing your time calculations with Excel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Since late 2005... " is not 5 + + years.It 's not even 4 years.Been doing your time calculations with Excel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Since late 2005..." is not 5++ years.It's not even 4 years.Been doing your time calculations with Excel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571999</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not arguing your point. Just making a note that Accenture is a Microsoft backed consulting firm. Had a friend who used to work for them, but really worked for Microsoft. Just saying. So yah, it is a Microsoft problem, and is most likely due to just a poor programming team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not arguing your point .
Just making a note that Accenture is a Microsoft backed consulting firm .
Had a friend who used to work for them , but really worked for Microsoft .
Just saying .
So yah , it is a Microsoft problem , and is most likely due to just a poor programming team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not arguing your point.
Just making a note that Accenture is a Microsoft backed consulting firm.
Had a friend who used to work for them, but really worked for Microsoft.
Just saying.
So yah, it is a Microsoft problem, and is most likely due to just a poor programming team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571939</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1246637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At work I have daily problems with Windows.  And the worst part is that when it has a problem Windows is a mystery to what happened a lot of the time.  Some cryptic message in the event log that means nothing.  I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable.  Microsoft is easier to use and has more applications, but I would never use it to keep something mission critical running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work I have daily problems with Windows .
And the worst part is that when it has a problem Windows is a mystery to what happened a lot of the time .
Some cryptic message in the event log that means nothing .
I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable .
Microsoft is easier to use and has more applications , but I would never use it to keep something mission critical running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work I have daily problems with Windows.
And the worst part is that when it has a problem Windows is a mystery to what happened a lot of the time.
Some cryptic message in the event log that means nothing.
I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable.
Microsoft is easier to use and has more applications, but I would never use it to keep something mission critical running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582053</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246739880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds fishy to claim 5 nines on Windows. It takes longer than 5 nines allows just to apply the service packs and security updates each year.<br> <br>Maybe they're talking about a cluster of machines, where you have enough together so that you can down each in turn for maintenance?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds fishy to claim 5 nines on Windows .
It takes longer than 5 nines allows just to apply the service packs and security updates each year .
Maybe they 're talking about a cluster of machines , where you have enough together so that you can down each in turn for maintenance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds fishy to claim 5 nines on Windows.
It takes longer than 5 nines allows just to apply the service packs and security updates each year.
Maybe they're talking about a cluster of machines, where you have enough together so that you can down each in turn for maintenance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28592631</id>
	<title>Was Windows the Issue?</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246881480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, seriously, that's worse than pathetic! You can make stable systems on ANY platform as long as you plan for things to go wrong.<br><br>After all, fault tolerance for mission critical systems should be at the application level for the most part. Doing it at the system level makes you entirely dependent on the system itself remaining stable.<br><br>It sounds more likely that the developers who made the system were run of the mill "I made a calculator in C#, I'm a real programmer now!" types. You find these guys in any language.<br><br>In systems like this, if you have to use SQL, the use Oracle on whatever system Oracle delivers on. Make it redundant as hell, make at least several fail-over paths and if the UI is web based, then load balance with fail-over across at least 10 servers. No single byte of data should exist on any ONE machine, it should be duplicated/mirrored to hell and back.<br><br>At this level, it makes absolutely no difference what platform you're running on, in fact, running a Java platform on Windows AND Linux (or another Unix) should be a minimum so that when operating specific bugs pop up, fail over would keep things running on the system which doesn't have the bug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , seriously , that 's worse than pathetic !
You can make stable systems on ANY platform as long as you plan for things to go wrong.After all , fault tolerance for mission critical systems should be at the application level for the most part .
Doing it at the system level makes you entirely dependent on the system itself remaining stable.It sounds more likely that the developers who made the system were run of the mill " I made a calculator in C # , I 'm a real programmer now !
" types .
You find these guys in any language.In systems like this , if you have to use SQL , the use Oracle on whatever system Oracle delivers on .
Make it redundant as hell , make at least several fail-over paths and if the UI is web based , then load balance with fail-over across at least 10 servers .
No single byte of data should exist on any ONE machine , it should be duplicated/mirrored to hell and back.At this level , it makes absolutely no difference what platform you 're running on , in fact , running a Java platform on Windows AND Linux ( or another Unix ) should be a minimum so that when operating specific bugs pop up , fail over would keep things running on the system which does n't have the bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, seriously, that's worse than pathetic!
You can make stable systems on ANY platform as long as you plan for things to go wrong.After all, fault tolerance for mission critical systems should be at the application level for the most part.
Doing it at the system level makes you entirely dependent on the system itself remaining stable.It sounds more likely that the developers who made the system were run of the mill "I made a calculator in C#, I'm a real programmer now!
" types.
You find these guys in any language.In systems like this, if you have to use SQL, the use Oracle on whatever system Oracle delivers on.
Make it redundant as hell, make at least several fail-over paths and if the UI is web based, then load balance with fail-over across at least 10 servers.
No single byte of data should exist on any ONE machine, it should be duplicated/mirrored to hell and back.At this level, it makes absolutely no difference what platform you're running on, in fact, running a Java platform on Windows AND Linux (or another Unix) should be a minimum so that when operating specific bugs pop up, fail over would keep things running on the system which doesn't have the bug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572507</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Tony-A</author>
	<datestamp>1246640940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always Microsoft's fault.<br>Shoot first. Find out the facts later. Read what follows.<br>With the disconnect between hype and reality, the results are predictable.<br>Enronitis does not stop at the borders. The infection bleeds over the edges.<br>Any culture in which mediocrity is an aspiration will eventually run into trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always Microsoft 's fault.Shoot first .
Find out the facts later .
Read what follows.With the disconnect between hype and reality , the results are predictable.Enronitis does not stop at the borders .
The infection bleeds over the edges.Any culture in which mediocrity is an aspiration will eventually run into trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always Microsoft's fault.Shoot first.
Find out the facts later.
Read what follows.With the disconnect between hype and reality, the results are predictable.Enronitis does not stop at the borders.
The infection bleeds over the edges.Any culture in which mediocrity is an aspiration will eventually run into trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577947</id>
	<title>Accenture = clusterfuck = Duh!</title>
	<author>sydbarrett74</author>
	<datestamp>1246645440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I read the article and found out Accenture was responsible, my immediate reaction was, <strong>'Well <em>of course</em> the implementation was a disaster!'</strong> The 'consultants' at Accenture couldn't implement their way out of a clown costume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I read the article and found out Accenture was responsible , my immediate reaction was , 'Well of course the implementation was a disaster !
' The 'consultants ' at Accenture could n't implement their way out of a clown costume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I read the article and found out Accenture was responsible, my immediate reaction was, 'Well of course the implementation was a disaster!
' The 'consultants' at Accenture couldn't implement their way out of a clown costume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571505</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246635000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never said you can't blame Microsoft, but I doubt that they really had much input into the project, and just jumped on it as a marketing opportunity.</p><p>Similar to how video games always have the logo of the <i>publisher</i> on the front of the box, and the actual developer is only credited on the back.<br>"EA made this terrible game" etc in reviews normally means "EA published this terrible game which was made by someone else".</p><p>Regardless, there is nothing to suggest (except this terrible article and fanboys) that the LSE has any issue with Windows itself, just with their trading software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never said you ca n't blame Microsoft , but I doubt that they really had much input into the project , and just jumped on it as a marketing opportunity.Similar to how video games always have the logo of the publisher on the front of the box , and the actual developer is only credited on the back .
" EA made this terrible game " etc in reviews normally means " EA published this terrible game which was made by someone else " .Regardless , there is nothing to suggest ( except this terrible article and fanboys ) that the LSE has any issue with Windows itself , just with their trading software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never said you can't blame Microsoft, but I doubt that they really had much input into the project, and just jumped on it as a marketing opportunity.Similar to how video games always have the logo of the publisher on the front of the box, and the actual developer is only credited on the back.
"EA made this terrible game" etc in reviews normally means "EA published this terrible game which was made by someone else".Regardless, there is nothing to suggest (except this terrible article and fanboys) that the LSE has any issue with Windows itself, just with their trading software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572497</id>
	<title>Most people have never tried either</title>
	<author>nicholdraper</author>
	<datestamp>1246640880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people have never tried implementing an application that handles such a heavy load in any system.  I worked for an ISP that implemented a system, not as big, but in the hundreds of thousands of transactions a day.  We started with Windows servers and switched to Linux -- not because of faults in Windows, but because of cost.  I always chuckled when I saw those TCO ads by Microsoft.  If you are a computer professional who has been trained in both systems, setup and install time usually goes to Linux.  Now I know many windows guys are saying that it only takes seconds to restore their systems.  I don't know any professional Windows shop that doesn't rely upon some type of system ghosting, because windows takes so long to install from scratch.  Sure ghosting has an edge, but from CD our Linux server install took 15 minutes.  I've seen shops stick to a platform after the hardware is out of date, because they are so scared of the time to re-setup their systems.  Why doesn't Windows XP get upgraded.  Microsoft serves its target market well, which is companies from 5 to 500 employees.  Their products are overly complex for home users and the licensing fees so large for large companies that companies like Sun have found it cheaper to write their own office applications and to give them away for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people have never tried implementing an application that handles such a heavy load in any system .
I worked for an ISP that implemented a system , not as big , but in the hundreds of thousands of transactions a day .
We started with Windows servers and switched to Linux -- not because of faults in Windows , but because of cost .
I always chuckled when I saw those TCO ads by Microsoft .
If you are a computer professional who has been trained in both systems , setup and install time usually goes to Linux .
Now I know many windows guys are saying that it only takes seconds to restore their systems .
I do n't know any professional Windows shop that does n't rely upon some type of system ghosting , because windows takes so long to install from scratch .
Sure ghosting has an edge , but from CD our Linux server install took 15 minutes .
I 've seen shops stick to a platform after the hardware is out of date , because they are so scared of the time to re-setup their systems .
Why does n't Windows XP get upgraded .
Microsoft serves its target market well , which is companies from 5 to 500 employees .
Their products are overly complex for home users and the licensing fees so large for large companies that companies like Sun have found it cheaper to write their own office applications and to give them away for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people have never tried implementing an application that handles such a heavy load in any system.
I worked for an ISP that implemented a system, not as big, but in the hundreds of thousands of transactions a day.
We started with Windows servers and switched to Linux -- not because of faults in Windows, but because of cost.
I always chuckled when I saw those TCO ads by Microsoft.
If you are a computer professional who has been trained in both systems, setup and install time usually goes to Linux.
Now I know many windows guys are saying that it only takes seconds to restore their systems.
I don't know any professional Windows shop that doesn't rely upon some type of system ghosting, because windows takes so long to install from scratch.
Sure ghosting has an edge, but from CD our Linux server install took 15 minutes.
I've seen shops stick to a platform after the hardware is out of date, because they are so scared of the time to re-setup their systems.
Why doesn't Windows XP get upgraded.
Microsoft serves its target market well, which is companies from 5 to 500 employees.
Their products are overly complex for home users and the licensing fees so large for large companies that companies like Sun have found it cheaper to write their own office applications and to give them away for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</id>
	<title>NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246633920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well."</b> - by Jerky McNaughty (1391) on Friday July 03, @09:40AM (#28571007)</p></div><p>NASDAQ is an example of this, &amp; yes: <b>NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999\% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005</b> (in failover clusters) <b>since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data:</b></p><p>----</p><p><b>NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:</b></p><p><a href="http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005" title="windowsfs.com" rel="nofollow">http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005</a> [windowsfs.com]</p><p>&amp;/or</p><p><b>NASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:</b></p><p><a href="http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/" title="sqlauthority.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/</a> [sqlauthority.com]</p><p>"NASDAQ, the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft&#174; SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft&#174; SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down."</p><p>+</p><p><b>Case Studies - Financial Services:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true</a> [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]</p><p>"<b>NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries</b></p><p>NASDAQ, which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971, and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market, is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members. As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft&#174; SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced."</p><p>----</p><p><b>NOW - the actual PROOF of that "stability/uptime":</b></p><p><a href="http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare" title="nasdaqtrader.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare</a> [nasdaqtrader.com]</p><p><b>"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+\% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."</b></p><p>----</p><p>AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, &amp; speed on Windows, in a high tpm environs, keeping stable &amp; running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=? Personally, &amp; especially based on the evidences here (the thread topic itself, &amp; the NASDAQ data I just provided here)? Well - I think a great deal of stability &amp; uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system, first, AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also (this means the network engineering staff AND coding teams around said projects), as well as their personal work-ethics - not so much on the Operating Systems + software involved (though this latter portion matters largely enough as well - but you have the example of NASDAQ doing well using Windows, &amp; the London Stock Exchange folks NOT DOING WELL, so... you decide if I have a point here, or not)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Looking at other exchanges , there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10 + years while scaling quite well .
" - by Jerky McNaughty ( 1391 ) on Friday July 03 , @ 09 : 40AM ( # 28571007 ) NASDAQ is an example of this , &amp; yes : NASDAQ has maintained the " fabled '5-9 's " of 99.999 \ % uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 ( in failover clusters ) since late 2005 , acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data : ----NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005 : http : //windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005 [ windowsfs.com ] &amp;/orNASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management : http : //blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/ [ sqlauthority.com ] " NASDAQ , the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft   SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System ( MDDS ) .
Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft   SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open .
The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down .
" + Case Studies - Financial Services : http : //www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx ? pf = true [ microsoft.com ] [ microsoft.com ] [ microsoft.com ] [ microsoft.com ] [ microsoft.com ] " NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and QueriesNASDAQ , which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971 , and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market , is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members .
As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers , it deployed Microsoft   SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System ( MDDS ) .
Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system , with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open .
SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day , using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database .
NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced .
" ----NOW - the actual PROOF of that " stability/uptime " : http : //www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx ? id = MarketShare [ nasdaqtrader.com ] " NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999 + \ % uptime .
Whats more , firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently .
" ----AND , " There ya are " ... Evidence of the possible stability , security , &amp; speed on Windows , in a high tpm environs , keeping stable &amp; running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade + + going strong , acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ ! APKP.S. = ?
Personally , &amp; especially based on the evidences here ( the thread topic itself , &amp; the NASDAQ data I just provided here ) ?
Well - I think a great deal of stability &amp; uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system , first , AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also ( this means the network engineering staff AND coding teams around said projects ) , as well as their personal work-ethics - not so much on the Operating Systems + software involved ( though this latter portion matters largely enough as well - but you have the example of NASDAQ doing well using Windows , &amp; the London Stock Exchange folks NOT DOING WELL , so... you decide if I have a point here , or not ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well.
" - by Jerky McNaughty (1391) on Friday July 03, @09:40AM (#28571007)NASDAQ is an example of this, &amp; yes: NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999\% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data:----NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005 [windowsfs.com]&amp;/orNASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/ [sqlauthority.com]"NASDAQ, the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS).
Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open.
The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down.
"+Case Studies - Financial Services:http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and QueriesNASDAQ, which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971, and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market, is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members.
As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS).
Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open.
SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database.
NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced.
"----NOW - the actual PROOF of that "stability/uptime":http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare [nasdaqtrader.com]"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+\% uptime.
Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently.
"----AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, &amp; speed on Windows, in a high tpm environs, keeping stable &amp; running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!APKP.S.=?
Personally, &amp; especially based on the evidences here (the thread topic itself, &amp; the NASDAQ data I just provided here)?
Well - I think a great deal of stability &amp; uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system, first, AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also (this means the network engineering staff AND coding teams around said projects), as well as their personal work-ethics - not so much on the Operating Systems + software involved (though this latter portion matters largely enough as well - but you have the example of NASDAQ doing well using Windows, &amp; the London Stock Exchange folks NOT DOING WELL, so... you decide if I have a point here, or not)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571073</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1246632360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software</p></div><p>
Yeah, but then it wouldn't have made Slashdot!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could easily have been the other way around , ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software Yeah , but then it would n't have made Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software
Yeah, but then it wouldn't have made Slashdot!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573387</id>
	<title>had to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>It's not Windows vs Linux.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, it's Microsoft vs Linux.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it's Microsoft vs <b>GNU</b>/Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux .
No , it 's Microsoft vs Linux.No , it 's Microsoft vs GNU/Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.
No, it's Microsoft vs Linux.No, it's Microsoft vs GNU/Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573265</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks, whoever you are. I haven't had the time to check out all your references, but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments. Definitely Microsoft software, and definitely a very reliable system. I'm impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , whoever you are .
I have n't had the time to check out all your references , but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments .
Definitely Microsoft software , and definitely a very reliable system .
I 'm impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, whoever you are.
I haven't had the time to check out all your references, but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments.
Definitely Microsoft software, and definitely a very reliable system.
I'm impressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583149</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Huzzah!</author>
	<datestamp>1246709280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576565</id>
	<title>Re: Correct, Manager's Fault For Choosing Windows</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1246628160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So Amazon, Google, Yahoo, NYSE, and so on choose bsd, linux, or solaris, with good reason.  While LSE managers apparently think that the OS that they run on their desktop for word processing is up to the task of running an exchange because, well... why not, they use it all day long!
</p><p>
"Wall Street Embraces Linux" :   <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html" title="forbes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html</a> [forbes.com]
</p><p>
"NYSE Moves to Linux" (from UNIX):   <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/14/2312210" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/14/2312210</a> [slashdot.org]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Amazon , Google , Yahoo , NYSE , and so on choose bsd , linux , or solaris , with good reason .
While LSE managers apparently think that the OS that they run on their desktop for word processing is up to the task of running an exchange because , well... why not , they use it all day long !
" Wall Street Embraces Linux " : http : //www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html [ forbes.com ] " NYSE Moves to Linux " ( from UNIX ) : http : //linux.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/12/14/2312210 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So Amazon, Google, Yahoo, NYSE, and so on choose bsd, linux, or solaris, with good reason.
While LSE managers apparently think that the OS that they run on their desktop for word processing is up to the task of running an exchange because, well... why not, they use it all day long!
"Wall Street Embraces Linux" :   http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html [forbes.com]

"NYSE Moves to Linux" (from UNIX):   http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/14/2312210 [slashdot.org]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28575541</id>
	<title>what the hell!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246618980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mission-critical and Accenture can't go in the same sentece.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mission-critical and Accenture ca n't go in the same sentece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mission-critical and Accenture can't go in the same sentece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570969</id>
	<title>Re:Seems more big bussiness and goverments....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246631820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but it's a shame that so many have to get burned badly by trusting Microsoft and their subpar products first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but it 's a shame that so many have to get burned badly by trusting Microsoft and their subpar products first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but it's a shame that so many have to get burned badly by trusting Microsoft and their subpar products first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572659</id>
	<title>High Performance != Mission Critical</title>
	<author>ggraham412</author>
	<datestamp>1246641960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vaughn does some sleight of hand with the term "Mission Critical".  I would say from personal experience in a large high energy physics experiment that Windows NT/XP is not the best platform for a high performance/high availability application.  The LSE experience may have been similar, and perhaps aggravated by incompetent consultant, but to conclude from this that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is not a good platform for "Mission Critical" applications is just false.  I work on several "Mission Critical"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net applications at a medium bank where 10 ms response times would be way overkill...

That being said, if you really want to make your platform bulletproof, code it in C/C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vaughn does some sleight of hand with the term " Mission Critical " .
I would say from personal experience in a large high energy physics experiment that Windows NT/XP is not the best platform for a high performance/high availability application .
The LSE experience may have been similar , and perhaps aggravated by incompetent consultant , but to conclude from this that .Net is not a good platform for " Mission Critical " applications is just false .
I work on several " Mission Critical " .Net applications at a medium bank where 10 ms response times would be way overkill.. . That being said , if you really want to make your platform bulletproof , code it in C/C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vaughn does some sleight of hand with the term "Mission Critical".
I would say from personal experience in a large high energy physics experiment that Windows NT/XP is not the best platform for a high performance/high availability application.
The LSE experience may have been similar, and perhaps aggravated by incompetent consultant, but to conclude from this that .Net is not a good platform for "Mission Critical" applications is just false.
I work on several "Mission Critical" .Net applications at a medium bank where 10 ms response times would be way overkill...

That being said, if you really want to make your platform bulletproof, code it in C/C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570981</id>
	<title>Elementary, my near noob</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1246631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE (London Stock Exchange)'s Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day. While <strong>the LSE denied that the collapse was TradElect's fault, they also refused to explain what the problem really wa.</strong></p></div><p>
Right, so it wasn't M$'s TradElect's fault, therefore it clearly was M$'s TradElect's fault.  Someone give this guy a job at the FBI!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE ( London Stock Exchange ) 's Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day .
While the LSE denied that the collapse was TradElect 's fault , they also refused to explain what the problem really wa .
Right , so it was n't M $ 's TradElect 's fault , therefore it clearly was M $ 's TradElect 's fault .
Someone give this guy a job at the FBI !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE (London Stock Exchange)'s Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day.
While the LSE denied that the collapse was TradElect's fault, they also refused to explain what the problem really wa.
Right, so it wasn't M$'s TradElect's fault, therefore it clearly was M$'s TradElect's fault.
Someone give this guy a job at the FBI!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571199</id>
	<title>Re:Two years worth of use</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1246633200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years. It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture.</p></div></blockquote><p>We've got a contract with Accenture at work. Apparently they manage our computer systems. Having seen some of the prices they charge for things like "putting a usable amount of memory in a laptop" I'm assuming that breaks down somewhere in the region of &pound;38M for Accenture fees and &pound;2M for the actual application!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They spent about 40M GBP building the system , and it 's only been used for two years .
It was ( entirely ?
) outsourced to Accenture.We 've got a contract with Accenture at work .
Apparently they manage our computer systems .
Having seen some of the prices they charge for things like " putting a usable amount of memory in a laptop " I 'm assuming that breaks down somewhere in the region of   38M for Accenture fees and   2M for the actual application !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years.
It was (entirely?
) outsourced to Accenture.We've got a contract with Accenture at work.
Apparently they manage our computer systems.
Having seen some of the prices they charge for things like "putting a usable amount of memory in a laptop" I'm assuming that breaks down somewhere in the region of £38M for Accenture fees and £2M for the actual application!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28580447</id>
	<title>Re:Fun game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>google for "London Stock Exchange site:microsoft.com" and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.</p><p>I bet if you interviewed Ballmer, he'd say something like "London has a Stock Exchane?!? I sure as fsck never heard of it"</p></div><p>Hrm.  I wonder what Bing turns up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>google for " London Stock Exchange site : microsoft.com " and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.I bet if you interviewed Ballmer , he 'd say something like " London has a Stock Exchane ? ! ?
I sure as fsck never heard of it " Hrm .
I wonder what Bing turns up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google for "London Stock Exchange site:microsoft.com" and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.I bet if you interviewed Ballmer, he'd say something like "London has a Stock Exchane?!?
I sure as fsck never heard of it"Hrm.
I wonder what Bing turns up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28579315</id>
	<title>*shrug* I'll keep coding for the darkside.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246712820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The facts stand and I won't challenge them, Microsoft was culpable in the issues this software had. What I will challenge is this insane notion that software written for Microsoft platforms is somehow inherently inferior. Either most of you posting don't actually work as developers or are simply out of touch with what's going on in the industry. At the moment there is a colossal brain drain away from development based on FOSS platforms and towards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net which is to all intents and purposes Microsoft only.<br><br>The reason? There are many technical ones but the main one, the one that made me quit developing LAMP applications and restart on ASP.Net is money money money. According to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.itjobswatch.co.uk the average salery for a ASP.Net developer in the City of London is &pound;45k, compare this to the average rate for a PHP developer which is only &#194;&pound;37k and having applied for both as a senior developer I can assure you, it's a hell of a lot easier to get the &pound;45k in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net than it is to get the &pound;37k in PHP.<br><br>In fact when applying for PHP roles last year I went forward for team leader/senior developer roles and was often offered as little as &#194;&pound;30k with the assumption by the companies hiring that I should be thrilled with such an offer. I then got a tip off from someone who had made the switch already and applied for a junior ASP.Net role, starting rate? &pound;32k.<br><br>I could go on about the increased professionalism, respect and code quality but really the money is the main thing, I can't waste my time in an Industry that seemingly prides itself on how cheap it is. Either FOSS development picks up its game or it will die under the dead sea effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The facts stand and I wo n't challenge them , Microsoft was culpable in the issues this software had .
What I will challenge is this insane notion that software written for Microsoft platforms is somehow inherently inferior .
Either most of you posting do n't actually work as developers or are simply out of touch with what 's going on in the industry .
At the moment there is a colossal brain drain away from development based on FOSS platforms and towards .Net which is to all intents and purposes Microsoft only.The reason ?
There are many technical ones but the main one , the one that made me quit developing LAMP applications and restart on ASP.Net is money money money .
According to .itjobswatch.co.uk the average salery for a ASP.Net developer in the City of London is   45k , compare this to the average rate for a PHP developer which is only     37k and having applied for both as a senior developer I can assure you , it 's a hell of a lot easier to get the   45k in .Net than it is to get the   37k in PHP.In fact when applying for PHP roles last year I went forward for team leader/senior developer roles and was often offered as little as     30k with the assumption by the companies hiring that I should be thrilled with such an offer .
I then got a tip off from someone who had made the switch already and applied for a junior ASP.Net role , starting rate ?
  32k.I could go on about the increased professionalism , respect and code quality but really the money is the main thing , I ca n't waste my time in an Industry that seemingly prides itself on how cheap it is .
Either FOSS development picks up its game or it will die under the dead sea effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The facts stand and I won't challenge them, Microsoft was culpable in the issues this software had.
What I will challenge is this insane notion that software written for Microsoft platforms is somehow inherently inferior.
Either most of you posting don't actually work as developers or are simply out of touch with what's going on in the industry.
At the moment there is a colossal brain drain away from development based on FOSS platforms and towards .Net which is to all intents and purposes Microsoft only.The reason?
There are many technical ones but the main one, the one that made me quit developing LAMP applications and restart on ASP.Net is money money money.
According to .itjobswatch.co.uk the average salery for a ASP.Net developer in the City of London is £45k, compare this to the average rate for a PHP developer which is only Â£37k and having applied for both as a senior developer I can assure you, it's a hell of a lot easier to get the £45k in .Net than it is to get the £37k in PHP.In fact when applying for PHP roles last year I went forward for team leader/senior developer roles and was often offered as little as Â£30k with the assumption by the companies hiring that I should be thrilled with such an offer.
I then got a tip off from someone who had made the switch already and applied for a junior ASP.Net role, starting rate?
£32k.I could go on about the increased professionalism, respect and code quality but really the money is the main thing, I can't waste my time in an Industry that seemingly prides itself on how cheap it is.
Either FOSS development picks up its game or it will die under the dead sea effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571001</id>
	<title>Thanks.</title>
	<author>bezking</author>
	<datestamp>1246631940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation"
<br> <br> <br>
This just made my day. Now i can go back to bed. <br> <br>Thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation " This just made my day .
Now i can go back to bed .
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation"
  
This just made my day.
Now i can go back to bed.
Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572119</id>
	<title>blame TradElect management</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1246638540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster</i>", Jerky McNaughty <br> <br>

"<i>A prototype<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. was first developed with <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/uk/getthefacts/lse.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft and Accenture</a> [microsoft.com] </i>"<br> <br>

"<i>There was quite a high degree of risk involved on <a href="http://www.avanade.com/customers/casestudy.aspx?id=48" title="avanade.com">both sides</a> [avanade.com]. But <strong>Accenture</strong>, <strong>Microsoft</strong> and <strong>Avanade</strong> were very keen to make sure this would work. They pulled out all the stops</i>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It was ( entirely ?
) outsourced to Accenture .. TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster " , Jerky McNaughty " A prototype .. was first developed with Microsoft and Accenture [ microsoft.com ] " " There was quite a high degree of risk involved on both sides [ avanade.com ] .
But Accenture , Microsoft and Avanade were very keen to make sure this would work .
They pulled out all the stops "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It was (entirely?
) outsourced to Accenture .. TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster", Jerky McNaughty  

"A prototype .. was first developed with Microsoft and Accenture [microsoft.com] " 

"There was quite a high degree of risk involved on both sides [avanade.com].
But Accenture, Microsoft and Avanade were very keen to make sure this would work.
They pulled out all the stops"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572889</id>
	<title>It's SJVN...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1246643160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft killed his parents, his dog, two goldfishes and his pet cucumber (to whom he refers as Reginald).<br>He has been fuming about anything remotely connected to Microsoft ever since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft killed his parents , his dog , two goldfishes and his pet cucumber ( to whom he refers as Reginald ) .He has been fuming about anything remotely connected to Microsoft ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft killed his parents, his dog, two goldfishes and his pet cucumber (to whom he refers as Reginald).He has been fuming about anything remotely connected to Microsoft ever since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576065</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>ViciousJello</author>
	<datestamp>1246623600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...we need somebody to do a Super Size Me-esque documentary on how badly Microsoft has failed the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we need somebody to do a Super Size Me-esque documentary on how badly Microsoft has failed the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we need somebody to do a Super Size Me-esque documentary on how badly Microsoft has failed the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573083</id>
	<title>This is what I love about Slashdot...</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1246644360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that the articles can't be buried and that to make any headway, the shills and other turfers have to make some form of argument in order to be modded up...</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the articles ca n't be buried and that to make any headway , the shills and other turfers have to make some form of argument in order to be modded up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the articles can't be buried and that to make any headway, the shills and other turfers have to make some form of argument in order to be modded up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583235</id>
	<title>99.999\% uptime evidences for SQLServer 2005</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For \_Sprocket\_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wise ass dolts:</p><p>(And "There YOU are", A/C, next below...)</p><p>----</p><p> <b>FUJIFILM</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p> <b>"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require."</b> - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company</p><p>----</p><p> <b>XEROX</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133</a> [microsoft.com] </p><p> <b>"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities."</b> - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services</p><p>----</p><p> <b>ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789" title="cwhonors.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789</a> [cwhonors.org] </p><p>"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"</p><p>----</p><p> <b>MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year"</b>,says Catassi. <b>"WithSQLServer 2005 weve<br>enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"</b> </p><p>----</p><p>AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? <b>NASDAQ EVIDENCE</b> (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS):</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System</b> </p><p>5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Fixed Income Trade and Positioning</p><p>System running on SQL Server 2005<br>30\% performance increase,<br>capacity to process 1,000 trades / second</p><p>5TB of data on SQL Server 2005<br> <b>99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth</b> </p><p>Web solution managing millions of devices,<br>7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptime<br>Built with Visual Studio 2005,<br>running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Integrated with Visual Studio and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET<br>Integrated development &amp;<br>debugging experience<br>Execution location &amp;<br>programming language choice</p><p>SQL Server Service Broker<br>Asynchronous queuing for<br>highly available applications<br>Reliable messaging for scale out</p><p>CacheSync<br>High performance AS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For \ _Sprocket \ _ , k10quant , cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all , time to " eat your words " , wise ass dolts : ( And " There YOU are " , A/C , next below... ) ---- FUJIFILM = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : YsNIT18PBTEJ : download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm \ _SQLServerCaseStudy.doc + \ % 22SQL + Server + 2005 \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 64&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] " This is a mission-critical project , which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability .
Stoppages are just not acceptable .
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require .
" - Michito Watanabe , President and Managing Director , Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49133 [ microsoft.com ] " SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application .
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application , we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities .
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager , Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp ? NominationID = 789 [ cwhonors.org ] " By migrating to the Fujitsu platform , Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability " ---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY : = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : VgxcewyAjkgJ : download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf + \ % 22SQLServer \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 19&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] " MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek , and 365 days a year " ,says Catassi .
" WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability " ----AND , LAST BUT NOT LEAST ?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE ( finally ) of 99.999 \ % uptime ( for MDDS ) : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : MjTjqPVpm5YJ : https : //partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115 + \ % 22Trusted + Platform \ % 22 + and + \ % 22SQL + Server \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second , 100K queries / day , running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530 \ % performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999 \ % uptime , scalability for 30 \ % annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day , with 99.999 \ % uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance AS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For \_Sprocket\_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wise ass dolts:(And "There YOU are", A/C, next below...)---- FUJIFILM = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]  "This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability.
Stoppages are just not acceptable.
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require.
" - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com]  "SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application.
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities.
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org] "By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] "MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi.
"WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability" ----AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS): http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530\% performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance AS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583465</id>
	<title>EAT YOUR WORDS, troll (99.999\% uptime evidences)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246713300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:</p><p>----</p><p> <b>FUJIFILM</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p> <b>"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require."</b> - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company</p><p>----</p><p> <b>XEROX</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133</a> [microsoft.com] </p><p> <b>"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities."</b> - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services</p><p>----</p><p> <b>ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005:</p><p> <a href="http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789" title="cwhonors.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789</a> [cwhonors.org] </p><p>"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"</p><p>----</p><p> <b>MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:</b> = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer:</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year"</b>,says Catassi. <b>"WithSQLServer 2005 weve<br>enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"</b> </p><p>----</p><p>AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? <b>NASDAQ EVIDENCE</b> (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS):</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]</p><p> <b>Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System</b> </p><p>5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Fixed Income Trade and Positioning</p><p>System running on SQL Server 2005<br>30\% performance increase,<br>capacity to process 1,000 trades / second</p><p>5TB of data on SQL Server 2005<br> <b>99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth</b> </p><p>Web solution managing millions of devices,<br>7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptime<br>Built with Visual Studio 2005,<br>running on SQL Server 2005</p><p>Integrated with Visual Studio and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET<br>Integrated development &amp;<br>debugging experience<br>Execution location &amp;<br>programming language choice</p><p>SQL Server Service Broker<br>Asynchronous queuing for<br>highly available applications<br>Reliable messaging for scale out</p><p>CacheSync<br>High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps</p><p>XML Data Type</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Sprocket ( the troll himself ) , k10quant , cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all , time to " eat your words " , wiseguys : ---- FUJIFILM = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : YsNIT18PBTEJ : download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm \ _SQLServerCaseStudy.doc + \ % 22SQL + Server + 2005 \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 64&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] " This is a mission-critical project , which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability .
Stoppages are just not acceptable .
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require .
" - Michito Watanabe , President and Managing Director , Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49133 [ microsoft.com ] " SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application .
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application , we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities .
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager , Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer 2005 : http : //www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp ? NominationID = 789 [ cwhonors.org ] " By migrating to the Fujitsu platform , Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability " ---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY : = 99.999 \ % uptime on SQLServer : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : VgxcewyAjkgJ : download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf + \ % 22SQLServer \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 19&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] " MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek , and 365 days a year " ,says Catassi .
" WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability " ----AND , LAST BUT NOT LEAST ?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE ( finally ) of 99.999 \ % uptime ( for MDDS ) : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : MjTjqPVpm5YJ : https : //partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115 + \ % 22Trusted + Platform \ % 22 + and + \ % 22SQL + Server \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] [ 74.125.47.132 ] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second , 100K queries / day , running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530 \ % performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999 \ % uptime , scalability for 30 \ % annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day , with 99.999 \ % uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance ASP.NET 2.0 appsXML Data Type</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe &amp; the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:---- FUJIFILM = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm\_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+\%22SQL+Server+2005\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=64&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]  "This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability.
Stoppages are just not acceptable.
SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require.
" - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company---- XEROX = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com]  "SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application.
To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities.
" - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services---- ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer 2005: http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org] "By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"---- MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999\% uptime on SQLServer: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+\%22SQLServer\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=19&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] "MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi.
"WithSQLServer 2005 weveenjoyed 99.999 percentavailability" ----AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST?
NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999\% uptime (for MDDS): http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+\%22Trusted+Platform\%22+and+\%22SQL+Server\%22+and+\%2299.999\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132] Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005Fixed Income Trade and PositioningSystem running on SQL Server 200530\% performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second5TB of data on SQL Server 2005 99.999\% uptime, scalability for 30\% annual growth Web solution managing millions of devices,7 million txs / day, with 99.999\% uptimeBuilt with Visual Studio 2005,running on SQL Server 2005Integrated with Visual Studio and .NETIntegrated development &amp;debugging experienceExecution location &amp;programming language choiceSQL Server Service BrokerAsynchronous queuing forhighly available applicationsReliable messaging for scale outCacheSyncHigh performance ASP.NET 2.0 appsXML Data Type</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574099</id>
	<title>LSE has horrible functionality and performance</title>
	<author>alexmin</author>
	<datestamp>1246651380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LSE is not even big comparing to US equity markets. I would even say small. Their data flow is about one tenth of that of Nasdaq. The number of traded issues is a tiny fraction of number of US issues too.<br>And yet they have absolutely horrible latencies of order entry interfaces comparing to what's 'normal' for US electronic trading venues.<br>Their TradElect platform even lacks proper timestamps on Level2 market data messages. On top of that wire format description is afair ~700 pages long. Compare it to Nasdaq spec - 12 (used to be 4) pages for market data interface, about 20 for order entry.<br>It's clear that LSE is one tangled mess - and the reason for it was a monopoly on trading British names and other listed securities. Now with MiFid EU directive in place they do not longer have that cushion.<br>So do not blame Windows - blame inept management and their boneheaded decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LSE is not even big comparing to US equity markets .
I would even say small .
Their data flow is about one tenth of that of Nasdaq .
The number of traded issues is a tiny fraction of number of US issues too.And yet they have absolutely horrible latencies of order entry interfaces comparing to what 's 'normal ' for US electronic trading venues.Their TradElect platform even lacks proper timestamps on Level2 market data messages .
On top of that wire format description is afair ~ 700 pages long .
Compare it to Nasdaq spec - 12 ( used to be 4 ) pages for market data interface , about 20 for order entry.It 's clear that LSE is one tangled mess - and the reason for it was a monopoly on trading British names and other listed securities .
Now with MiFid EU directive in place they do not longer have that cushion.So do not blame Windows - blame inept management and their boneheaded decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LSE is not even big comparing to US equity markets.
I would even say small.
Their data flow is about one tenth of that of Nasdaq.
The number of traded issues is a tiny fraction of number of US issues too.And yet they have absolutely horrible latencies of order entry interfaces comparing to what's 'normal' for US electronic trading venues.Their TradElect platform even lacks proper timestamps on Level2 market data messages.
On top of that wire format description is afair ~700 pages long.
Compare it to Nasdaq spec - 12 (used to be 4) pages for market data interface, about 20 for order entry.It's clear that LSE is one tangled mess - and the reason for it was a monopoly on trading British names and other listed securities.
Now with MiFid EU directive in place they do not longer have that cushion.So do not blame Windows - blame inept management and their boneheaded decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246631160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Huzzah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Huzzah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Huzzah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578379</id>
	<title>Abandoning windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246738260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will they see outside?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will they see outside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will they see outside?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573063</id>
	<title>All Exchanges Penguinized.</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1246644300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Priceless.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Priceless.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Priceless.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572789</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not Windows vs Linux. It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.</p> </div><p>True, but isn't strange that they're going to ditch the entire OS because of a 3rd party software failure? That would translate as: "there aren't alternatives to this software on this OS, therefore we're ditching the OS as well", which makes perfectly sense until one realizes we're talking about financial software... on Windows!</p><p>I would expect Linux to offer stabler alternatives, or simply more alternatives, in network software, programming tools or the embedded market, surely not in financial applications. That reason alone makes me believe now there are a dozen chairs flying in Redmond.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>inferior software isn't Windows-only, and does exist on Linux too.</p></div><p>That is absolutely true. Though having most software released under open licenses helps the community to grow its IT culture in a way that pays when those people choose a software for their job, be it open or not, in that it makes more and more difficult, if not impossible, to hide bugs and inflated costs behind multicolored brochures and well dressed salesmen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux .
It 's TradElect vs MarketPrizm , which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively .
True , but is n't strange that they 're going to ditch the entire OS because of a 3rd party software failure ?
That would translate as : " there are n't alternatives to this software on this OS , therefore we 're ditching the OS as well " , which makes perfectly sense until one realizes we 're talking about financial software... on Windows ! I would expect Linux to offer stabler alternatives , or simply more alternatives , in network software , programming tools or the embedded market , surely not in financial applications .
That reason alone makes me believe now there are a dozen chairs flying in Redmond.inferior software is n't Windows-only , and does exist on Linux too.That is absolutely true .
Though having most software released under open licenses helps the community to grow its IT culture in a way that pays when those people choose a software for their job , be it open or not , in that it makes more and more difficult , if not impossible , to hide bugs and inflated costs behind multicolored brochures and well dressed salesmen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.
It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.
True, but isn't strange that they're going to ditch the entire OS because of a 3rd party software failure?
That would translate as: "there aren't alternatives to this software on this OS, therefore we're ditching the OS as well", which makes perfectly sense until one realizes we're talking about financial software... on Windows!I would expect Linux to offer stabler alternatives, or simply more alternatives, in network software, programming tools or the embedded market, surely not in financial applications.
That reason alone makes me believe now there are a dozen chairs flying in Redmond.inferior software isn't Windows-only, and does exist on Linux too.That is absolutely true.
Though having most software released under open licenses helps the community to grow its IT culture in a way that pays when those people choose a software for their job, be it open or not, in that it makes more and more difficult, if not impossible, to hide bugs and inflated costs behind multicolored brochures and well dressed salesmen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572433</id>
	<title>Why bother with the truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246640460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is the article has nothing to do with dumping Windows for Linux, but one trading platform for another. Neither OS is a real-time OS (without RT extensions or patches or -rt), both can be used in soft real-time applications as is. This is just another good story for the daily WTF, with TRWTF being the headline of the slashdot story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is the article has nothing to do with dumping Windows for Linux , but one trading platform for another .
Neither OS is a real-time OS ( without RT extensions or patches or -rt ) , both can be used in soft real-time applications as is .
This is just another good story for the daily WTF , with TRWTF being the headline of the slashdot story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is the article has nothing to do with dumping Windows for Linux, but one trading platform for another.
Neither OS is a real-time OS (without RT extensions or patches or -rt), both can be used in soft real-time applications as is.
This is just another good story for the daily WTF, with TRWTF being the headline of the slashdot story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28601095</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1246881600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it deployed Microsoft&#194;&#174; SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters <b>to support</b> its Market Data Dissemination System</p></div></blockquote><p>
What a bunch of crappy marketing spin. My company's own unoptimised MySQL Intranet database runs the same amount of queries per day without breaking a sweat - this is on a crappy old box too. Read the statement I quoted - these MSSQL databases are merely 'support' for the real system. What a crap excuse for marketing - boy I hate marketing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it deployed Microsoft     SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System What a bunch of crappy marketing spin .
My company 's own unoptimised MySQL Intranet database runs the same amount of queries per day without breaking a sweat - this is on a crappy old box too .
Read the statement I quoted - these MSSQL databases are merely 'support ' for the real system .
What a crap excuse for marketing - boy I hate marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it deployed MicrosoftÂ® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System
What a bunch of crappy marketing spin.
My company's own unoptimised MySQL Intranet database runs the same amount of queries per day without breaking a sweat - this is on a crappy old box too.
Read the statement I quoted - these MSSQL databases are merely 'support' for the real system.
What a crap excuse for marketing - boy I hate marketing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572733</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's Microsoft vs <em>everyone</em>.  I don't care whether a system that I rely on rns Linux or not, but I sure as hell don't want to find out that it runs Windows.  Linux is fine, OpenBSD is fine, MacOS is ok, and OS/2 and AmigaOS are horribly dated -- but at least they're not Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's Microsoft vs everyone .
I do n't care whether a system that I rely on rns Linux or not , but I sure as hell do n't want to find out that it runs Windows .
Linux is fine , OpenBSD is fine , MacOS is ok , and OS/2 and AmigaOS are horribly dated -- but at least they 're not Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's Microsoft vs everyone.
I don't care whether a system that I rely on rns Linux or not, but I sure as hell don't want to find out that it runs Windows.
Linux is fine, OpenBSD is fine, MacOS is ok, and OS/2 and AmigaOS are horribly dated -- but at least they're not Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28575427</id>
	<title>Dont forget to also blame HP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246618020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you ask me I blame the fact they were using HP servers.  Wheres a photoshopped picture of a guy with his head up his own arse when you need one?  HP has got to be the worst experience I have ever had with anything that wasnt a printer (and even then their printer driver update system is laughably buggy).  Go ahead and blame windows all you want.  But dont forget to ALSO blame crappy HP hardware.  They cant make anything resembling good regular desktops or laptops why would you trust their servers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask me I blame the fact they were using HP servers .
Wheres a photoshopped picture of a guy with his head up his own arse when you need one ?
HP has got to be the worst experience I have ever had with anything that wasnt a printer ( and even then their printer driver update system is laughably buggy ) .
Go ahead and blame windows all you want .
But dont forget to ALSO blame crappy HP hardware .
They cant make anything resembling good regular desktops or laptops why would you trust their servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask me I blame the fact they were using HP servers.
Wheres a photoshopped picture of a guy with his head up his own arse when you need one?
HP has got to be the worst experience I have ever had with anything that wasnt a printer (and even then their printer driver update system is laughably buggy).
Go ahead and blame windows all you want.
But dont forget to ALSO blame crappy HP hardware.
They cant make anything resembling good regular desktops or laptops why would you trust their servers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28579599</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>cre\_slash</author>
	<datestamp>1246717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.

TradeNeglect?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's TradElect vs MarketPrizm , which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively .
TradeNeglect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.
TradeNeglect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28584247</id>
	<title>You're welcome RAMMS+EIN... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Thanks, whoever you are. I haven't had the time to check out all your references, but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments. Definitely Microsoft software, and definitely a very reliable system. I'm impressed."</b> - by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573265) Homepage</p></div><p> <b>You're welcome:</b> Whew - I had to fight off a LOAD of these "trolls" here, in K10quaint, Sprocket (the last one being the worst of them all, what a troll), &amp; the other "A/C" who I am fairly certain is another troll here called "Americano" (when he posts with his registered username that is)...</p><p>Anyhow/anyways - <b>I think you'll like THIS list, even better:</b></p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28583587" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28583587</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>(Especially considering it shows a LOT of places, that even pull HARDER/LARGER "tpm" (transactions-per-minute) than the MDDS NASDAQ OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM DOES (by FAR, especially in XEROX), &amp; they are doing the 'Fabled "5-9's"', bigtime))...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; In any event, enjoy the URL above... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thanks , whoever you are .
I have n't had the time to check out all your references , but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments .
Definitely Microsoft software , and definitely a very reliable system .
I 'm impressed .
" - by RAMMS + EIN ( 578166 ) on Friday July 03 , @ 01 : 27PM ( # 28573265 ) Homepage You 're welcome : Whew - I had to fight off a LOAD of these " trolls " here , in K10quaint , Sprocket ( the last one being the worst of them all , what a troll ) , &amp; the other " A/C " who I am fairly certain is another troll here called " Americano " ( when he posts with his registered username that is ) ...Anyhow/anyways - I think you 'll like THIS list , even better : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1290967&amp;cid = 28583587 [ slashdot.org ] ( Especially considering it shows a LOT of places , that even pull HARDER/LARGER " tpm " ( transactions-per-minute ) than the MDDS NASDAQ OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM DOES ( by FAR , especially in XEROX ) , &amp; they are doing the 'Fabled " 5-9 's " ' , bigtime ) ) ...APKP.S. = &gt; In any event , enjoy the URL above... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thanks, whoever you are.
I haven't had the time to check out all your references, but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments.
Definitely Microsoft software, and definitely a very reliable system.
I'm impressed.
" - by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573265) Homepage You're welcome: Whew - I had to fight off a LOAD of these "trolls" here, in K10quaint, Sprocket (the last one being the worst of them all, what a troll), &amp; the other "A/C" who I am fairly certain is another troll here called "Americano" (when he posts with his registered username that is)...Anyhow/anyways - I think you'll like THIS list, even better:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28583587 [slashdot.org](Especially considering it shows a LOT of places, that even pull HARDER/LARGER "tpm" (transactions-per-minute) than the MDDS NASDAQ OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM DOES (by FAR, especially in XEROX), &amp; they are doing the 'Fabled "5-9's"', bigtime))...APKP.S.=&gt; In any event, enjoy the URL above... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574111</id>
	<title>Were, not where.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246651500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go back to highschool for English classes, please. Where are you? Were you doing something stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back to highschool for English classes , please .
Where are you ?
Were you doing something stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back to highschool for English classes, please.
Where are you?
Were you doing something stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573893</id>
	<title>Still shows 99.999\% uptime &amp; stability, period</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Clever marketing, but irrelevant"</b> - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)</p></div><p>Actually, my sources being newer than those put out in reply to you from others IS quite relevant, for 1 thing (so look @ the data others are putting out below your reply here in addition to mine now)...</p><p><b>AND,  so is the quoted material from my sources showing 99.999\% uptime &amp; stability... care to dispute THAT much?</b></p><p>(IF so, argue with my sources, ok?? GOOD LUCK - they're only showing that Windows CAN maintain stable uptime in a high tpm environs!)</p><p>I only "claimed" what was put out, via quotes of my source articles, so... well, again - argue with what I quoted from my sources!</p><p>That all "said &amp; aside"? You're not disproving that I can &amp; have shown reputable sources for Windows doing well @ a stock exchange, which is a high tpm environs (&amp; the data shows the tpm rate maintainable as well in diff. cases no less also!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; As I predicted in my 1st post? <b>"Here comes the 'Pro-*NIX/Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows brigade"</b>, complete with "clever marketing" &amp; inaccurate stale information being brought to the table to misguide + misinform others with (this is not in regard to whom I am replying to now, but the other poster replying to the gent I am replying to now also)</p><p>Nope, not even a "nice try" &amp; certainly not a good showing! Better luck next time... same to the poster who also replied to you, by the by! apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Clever marketing , but irrelevant " - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 , @ 12 : 40PM ( # 28572825 ) Actually , my sources being newer than those put out in reply to you from others IS quite relevant , for 1 thing ( so look @ the data others are putting out below your reply here in addition to mine now ) ...AND , so is the quoted material from my sources showing 99.999 \ % uptime &amp; stability... care to dispute THAT much ?
( IF so , argue with my sources , ok ? ?
GOOD LUCK - they 're only showing that Windows CAN maintain stable uptime in a high tpm environs !
) I only " claimed " what was put out , via quotes of my source articles , so... well , again - argue with what I quoted from my sources ! That all " said &amp; aside " ?
You 're not disproving that I can &amp; have shown reputable sources for Windows doing well @ a stock exchange , which is a high tpm environs ( &amp; the data shows the tpm rate maintainable as well in diff .
cases no less also !
) APKP.S. = &gt; As I predicted in my 1st post ?
" Here comes the 'Pro- * NIX/Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows brigade " , complete with " clever marketing " &amp; inaccurate stale information being brought to the table to misguide + misinform others with ( this is not in regard to whom I am replying to now , but the other poster replying to the gent I am replying to now also ) Nope , not even a " nice try " &amp; certainly not a good showing !
Better luck next time... same to the poster who also replied to you , by the by !
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Clever marketing, but irrelevant" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)Actually, my sources being newer than those put out in reply to you from others IS quite relevant, for 1 thing (so look @ the data others are putting out below your reply here in addition to mine now)...AND,  so is the quoted material from my sources showing 99.999\% uptime &amp; stability... care to dispute THAT much?
(IF so, argue with my sources, ok??
GOOD LUCK - they're only showing that Windows CAN maintain stable uptime in a high tpm environs!
)I only "claimed" what was put out, via quotes of my source articles, so... well, again - argue with what I quoted from my sources!That all "said &amp; aside"?
You're not disproving that I can &amp; have shown reputable sources for Windows doing well @ a stock exchange, which is a high tpm environs (&amp; the data shows the tpm rate maintainable as well in diff.
cases no less also!
)APKP.S.=&gt; As I predicted in my 1st post?
"Here comes the 'Pro-*NIX/Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows brigade", complete with "clever marketing" &amp; inaccurate stale information being brought to the table to misguide + misinform others with (this is not in regard to whom I am replying to now, but the other poster replying to the gent I am replying to now also)Nope, not even a "nice try" &amp; certainly not a good showing!
Better luck next time... same to the poster who also replied to you, by the by!
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573349</id>
	<title>Unsuspecting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is yet another unsuspecting windows bashing piece posted on slashdot, you guys just can't get enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is yet another unsuspecting windows bashing piece posted on slashdot , you guys just ca n't get enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is yet another unsuspecting windows bashing piece posted on slashdot, you guys just can't get enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28615253</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Jaseoldboss</author>
	<datestamp>1246966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Claim from the second link article:<blockquote><div><p>One Hundred Per Cent Reliability for Traders on High-Volume Trading Days</p></div></blockquote><p>Compare with:</p><blockquote><div><p>The problem occurred on what could have been one of London's busiest trading days of the year, as markets rebounded worldwide following the [bailout]</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL01084620080908" title="reuters.com">source</a> [reuters.com] <br>Clearly only valid for some values of 100\%</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claim from the second link article : One Hundred Per Cent Reliability for Traders on High-Volume Trading DaysCompare with : The problem occurred on what could have been one of London 's busiest trading days of the year , as markets rebounded worldwide following the [ bailout ] source [ reuters.com ] Clearly only valid for some values of 100 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claim from the second link article:One Hundred Per Cent Reliability for Traders on High-Volume Trading DaysCompare with:The problem occurred on what could have been one of London's busiest trading days of the year, as markets rebounded worldwide following the [bailout] source [reuters.com] Clearly only valid for some values of 100\%
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574573</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look forward to your posts about the moon landing hoax and JFK assassinations.  Your style is right on track and so are your "facts".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look forward to your posts about the moon landing hoax and JFK assassinations .
Your style is right on track and so are your " facts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look forward to your posts about the moon landing hoax and JFK assassinations.
Your style is right on track and so are your "facts".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572853</id>
	<title>Recent Train Crash</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1246642980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that recent Seattle train crash also connected to MS ?</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that recent Seattle train crash also connected to MS ? Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that recent Seattle train crash also connected to MS ?Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571083</id>
	<title>I thought programming for windows was great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Developers! Developers! Developers!" and all that.</p><p>And the problem COULD be that Windows just doesn't work for what is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
" and all that.And the problem COULD be that Windows just does n't work for what is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Developers!
Developers! Developers!
" and all that.And the problem COULD be that Windows just doesn't work for what is needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574077</id>
	<title>Not the trading platform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246651140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These articles refer to MDDS, which is the platform used to distribute trade data, not to execute trades itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These articles refer to MDDS , which is the platform used to distribute trade data , not to execute trades itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These articles refer to MDDS, which is the platform used to distribute trade data, not to execute trades itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571091</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1246632480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was about to say the same thing.  TFA spends more time on rumour and innuendo than it does on facts, but it appears the competition is between applications - not operating systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to say the same thing .
TFA spends more time on rumour and innuendo than it does on facts , but it appears the competition is between applications - not operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to say the same thing.
TFA spends more time on rumour and innuendo than it does on facts, but it appears the competition is between applications - not operating systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574509</id>
	<title>Nobody was ever fired for choosing MicroSquish?</title>
	<author>nobodyknowsimageek</author>
	<datestamp>1246654620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the 25+ years I've been in the Software industry, I've heard this over and over again.</p><p>Meaning that buying M$ products was always a safe bet in terms of job security. Apparently that is no longer true. This is the real story here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 25 + years I 've been in the Software industry , I 've heard this over and over again.Meaning that buying M $ products was always a safe bet in terms of job security .
Apparently that is no longer true .
This is the real story here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 25+ years I've been in the Software industry, I've heard this over and over again.Meaning that buying M$ products was always a safe bet in terms of job security.
Apparently that is no longer true.
This is the real story here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</id>
	<title>Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246631940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not Windows vs Linux.</p><p>It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.</p><p>TradElect never managed its performance promises, which suggests lies from marketing and / or programmers unable to deliver what they were asked to. Despite what the Linux fanboys love to say, inferior software isn't Windows-only, and does exist on Linux too.</p><p>This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software. The OS is irrelevant here, except to fanboys of either side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Windows vs Linux.It 's TradElect vs MarketPrizm , which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.TradElect never managed its performance promises , which suggests lies from marketing and / or programmers unable to deliver what they were asked to .
Despite what the Linux fanboys love to say , inferior software is n't Windows-only , and does exist on Linux too.This could easily have been the other way around , ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software .
The OS is irrelevant here , except to fanboys of either side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Windows vs Linux.It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.TradElect never managed its performance promises, which suggests lies from marketing and / or programmers unable to deliver what they were asked to.
Despite what the Linux fanboys love to say, inferior software isn't Windows-only, and does exist on Linux too.This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software.
The OS is irrelevant here, except to fanboys of either side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572755</id>
	<title>Fun game</title>
	<author>Mateo\_LeFou</author>
	<datestamp>1246642500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google for "London Stock Exchange site:microsoft.com" and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.</p><p>I bet if you interviewed Ballmer, he'd say something like "London has a Stock Exchane?!? I sure as fsck never heard of it"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google for " London Stock Exchange site : microsoft.com " and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.I bet if you interviewed Ballmer , he 'd say something like " London has a Stock Exchane ? ! ?
I sure as fsck never heard of it "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google for "London Stock Exchange site:microsoft.com" and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.I bet if you interviewed Ballmer, he'd say something like "London has a Stock Exchane?!?
I sure as fsck never heard of it"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929</id>
	<title>Seems more big bussiness and goverments....</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1246631460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products. <br>http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx<br> <i>Make your own damn clicky.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products .
http : //www.microsoft.com/canada/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx Make your own damn clicky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products.
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx Make your own damn clicky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28575153</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246615860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teams of hot, hot women can sell anything to undersexed, overpaid tech execs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teams of hot , hot women can sell anything to undersexed , overpaid tech execs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teams of hot, hot women can sell anything to undersexed, overpaid tech execs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573373</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven, successful system.</p></div><p>I think you meant the National Stock Exchange in Chicago, not the Chicago Stock Exchange (formerly Midwest).</p><p>Granted, I don't think either exchange has enough volume to credibly highlight its technology.</p><p>\_Am</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven , successful system.I think you meant the National Stock Exchange in Chicago , not the Chicago Stock Exchange ( formerly Midwest ) .Granted , I do n't think either exchange has enough volume to credibly highlight its technology. \ _Am</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven, successful system.I think you meant the National Stock Exchange in Chicago, not the Chicago Stock Exchange (formerly Midwest).Granted, I don't think either exchange has enough volume to credibly highlight its technology.\_Am
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571009</id>
	<title>Seems like a bunch of unknowing</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246632000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the project. They needed a dedicated response time in the 1/100th second range and used a combination of Windows, SQL Server and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net!<br>The project was doomed from day 0!<br>The article is at fault here, Windows alone is not at fault it is the entire stack beginning from the OS up to the implementation language which is at fault!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the project .
They needed a dedicated response time in the 1/100th second range and used a combination of Windows , SQL Server and .Net ! The project was doomed from day 0 ! The article is at fault here , Windows alone is not at fault it is the entire stack beginning from the OS up to the implementation language which is at fault !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the project.
They needed a dedicated response time in the 1/100th second range and used a combination of Windows, SQL Server and .Net!The project was doomed from day 0!The article is at fault here, Windows alone is not at fault it is the entire stack beginning from the OS up to the implementation language which is at fault!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571309</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246633800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up. There is a refreshing amount of reality in the parent's post.
<br>
<br>
The OS is irrelevant - every modern server OS performs well enough to support sanely written software and sanely designed infrastructure.  Only the people living in the past and the ones having no clue will argue otherwise.
<br>
<br>
That is not to say any OS is without its quirks and differences. Part of writing software for a platform is also to understand and work around the platform's limitations, quirks or "ways" - and this obviously applies to every platform. (You don't go over committing memory on Linux and expect it will work as long as malloc() doesn't return NULL - you can do that on Solaris. Similarly I am sure there are things you can do on Linux but not on Solaris etc.) Unfortunately many programmers only know the programming language and its libraries - not the platform or even general OS concepts or scalability for that matter.
<br>
<br>
The suits are trigger happy - if some thing doesn't work for a time, they will just ask to get rid of it and use other product, redesign the whole thing or do something equally idiotic. I am sure the TradElect system can be fixed to run on Windows 2003 well enough - but the people who make decisions will not make an attempt to locate competent Architects and Programmers that can actually fix it.
<br>
<br>
[ This reminds me of a situation where we were asked to throw away a complete system because it wasn't able to handle high volumes and caused downtime - as it turned out, adding network timeouts and retries to the right places along with horizontal scaling resolved the issue completely satisfactorily and we are still running the same system 3 years later]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
There is a refreshing amount of reality in the parent 's post .
The OS is irrelevant - every modern server OS performs well enough to support sanely written software and sanely designed infrastructure .
Only the people living in the past and the ones having no clue will argue otherwise .
That is not to say any OS is without its quirks and differences .
Part of writing software for a platform is also to understand and work around the platform 's limitations , quirks or " ways " - and this obviously applies to every platform .
( You do n't go over committing memory on Linux and expect it will work as long as malloc ( ) does n't return NULL - you can do that on Solaris .
Similarly I am sure there are things you can do on Linux but not on Solaris etc .
) Unfortunately many programmers only know the programming language and its libraries - not the platform or even general OS concepts or scalability for that matter .
The suits are trigger happy - if some thing does n't work for a time , they will just ask to get rid of it and use other product , redesign the whole thing or do something equally idiotic .
I am sure the TradElect system can be fixed to run on Windows 2003 well enough - but the people who make decisions will not make an attempt to locate competent Architects and Programmers that can actually fix it .
[ This reminds me of a situation where we were asked to throw away a complete system because it was n't able to handle high volumes and caused downtime - as it turned out , adding network timeouts and retries to the right places along with horizontal scaling resolved the issue completely satisfactorily and we are still running the same system 3 years later ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
There is a refreshing amount of reality in the parent's post.
The OS is irrelevant - every modern server OS performs well enough to support sanely written software and sanely designed infrastructure.
Only the people living in the past and the ones having no clue will argue otherwise.
That is not to say any OS is without its quirks and differences.
Part of writing software for a platform is also to understand and work around the platform's limitations, quirks or "ways" - and this obviously applies to every platform.
(You don't go over committing memory on Linux and expect it will work as long as malloc() doesn't return NULL - you can do that on Solaris.
Similarly I am sure there are things you can do on Linux but not on Solaris etc.
) Unfortunately many programmers only know the programming language and its libraries - not the platform or even general OS concepts or scalability for that matter.
The suits are trigger happy - if some thing doesn't work for a time, they will just ask to get rid of it and use other product, redesign the whole thing or do something equally idiotic.
I am sure the TradElect system can be fixed to run on Windows 2003 well enough - but the people who make decisions will not make an attempt to locate competent Architects and Programmers that can actually fix it.
[ This reminds me of a situation where we were asked to throw away a complete system because it wasn't able to handle high volumes and caused downtime - as it turned out, adding network timeouts and retries to the right places along with horizontal scaling resolved the issue completely satisfactorily and we are still running the same system 3 years later]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577559</id>
	<title>Re:Fun game</title>
	<author>cblack</author>
	<datestamp>1246640460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He would never say that. I doubt he knows what "fsck" is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He would never say that .
I doubt he knows what " fsck " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He would never say that.
I doubt he knows what "fsck" is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571145</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1246632840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>inferior software isn't Windows-only</p></div><p>Who is saying that?<br> <br>That idiot SJVN doesn't count.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>inferior software is n't Windows-onlyWho is saying that ?
That idiot SJVN does n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inferior software isn't Windows-onlyWho is saying that?
That idiot SJVN doesn't count.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572745</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>erko</author>
	<datestamp>1246642440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, maybe it's not windows vs linux...<br> <br>but Linux won!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , maybe it 's not windows vs linux... but Linux won !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, maybe it's not windows vs linux... but Linux won!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572849</id>
	<title>Quite close...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1246642920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/user/137" title="computerworld.com">SJVN</a> [computerworld.com] is older, has less hair on his scalp and more on his face, and I assume his Asheville, North Carolina residence is not his parents' basement.</p><p>That could be a <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Starfleet\_uniform\_(2366-2370s)" title="memory-alpha.org">Star Trek's Starfleet uniform</a> [memory-alpha.org] he is wearing though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only SJVN [ computerworld.com ] is older , has less hair on his scalp and more on his face , and I assume his Asheville , North Carolina residence is not his parents ' basement.That could be a Star Trek 's Starfleet uniform [ memory-alpha.org ] he is wearing though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only SJVN [computerworld.com] is older, has less hair on his scalp and more on his face, and I assume his Asheville, North Carolina residence is not his parents' basement.That could be a Star Trek's Starfleet uniform [memory-alpha.org] he is wearing though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572049</id>
	<title>Seems more choose Solaris.</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1246638060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products. "</p><p>Yes I believe Solaris  will do nicely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products .
" Yes I believe Solaris will do nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products.
"Yes I believe Solaris  will do nicely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825</id>
	<title>Re:NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clever marketing, but irrelevant. As you note - in passing - this is for the information dissemination system, <b>not for the trading system</b>. It's there so people can do non-real-time-critical look-up of past trades. NASDAQ wouldn't trust their trading system to Windows.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system</p></div><p>Yes, it goes through the Windows stack <b>after</b> it has been processed by the trading system. Which used to run on <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Nasdaq-upgrades-HP-based-trading-system/2110-1010\_3-5628950.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware</a> [cnet.com] the year after your MDDS system was installed. I can't find anymore recent info <a href="http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=TradingSpecs" title="nasdaqtrader.com" rel="nofollow">even on the NASDAQ site</a> [nasdaqtrader.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clever marketing , but irrelevant .
As you note - in passing - this is for the information dissemination system , not for the trading system .
It 's there so people can do non-real-time-critical look-up of past trades .
NASDAQ would n't trust their trading system to Windows.Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the systemYes , it goes through the Windows stack after it has been processed by the trading system .
Which used to run on a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware [ cnet.com ] the year after your MDDS system was installed .
I ca n't find anymore recent info even on the NASDAQ site [ nasdaqtrader.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clever marketing, but irrelevant.
As you note - in passing - this is for the information dissemination system, not for the trading system.
It's there so people can do non-real-time-critical look-up of past trades.
NASDAQ wouldn't trust their trading system to Windows.Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the systemYes, it goes through the Windows stack after it has been processed by the trading system.
Which used to run on a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware [cnet.com] the year after your MDDS system was installed.
I can't find anymore recent info even on the NASDAQ site [nasdaqtrader.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571275</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Morphine007</author>
	<datestamp>1246633680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more than that, it's the OS that the software has to run on (since the OS handles the majority of the context switching and thread prioritization - which affect performance when you're shooting for something that approximates a real-time system), and it's the DB that the software ties into. The fanboism (both on the linux side and microsoft side) is annoying, I'll grant you that, but this DOES have something to do with the OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more than that , it 's the OS that the software has to run on ( since the OS handles the majority of the context switching and thread prioritization - which affect performance when you 're shooting for something that approximates a real-time system ) , and it 's the DB that the software ties into .
The fanboism ( both on the linux side and microsoft side ) is annoying , I 'll grant you that , but this DOES have something to do with the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more than that, it's the OS that the software has to run on (since the OS handles the majority of the context switching and thread prioritization - which affect performance when you're shooting for something that approximates a real-time system), and it's the DB that the software ties into.
The fanboism (both on the linux side and microsoft side) is annoying, I'll grant you that, but this DOES have something to do with the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574513</id>
	<title>Re:Not Windows' fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246654620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and they invested a lot of resources, both technical <strong>and marketing</strong>, into making this system run.</p></div><p>I didn't know you could use <em>marketing</em> to make systems run... =]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and they invested a lot of resources , both technical and marketing , into making this system run.I did n't know you could use marketing to make systems run... = ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and they invested a lot of resources, both technical and marketing, into making this system run.I didn't know you could use marketing to make systems run... =]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571415</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like a bunch of unknowing</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1246634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that MS was in on the development, and we can assume the requirements were known, it's a straight out case of vendor (and consultants) lying about the capabilities of the project, and customer later finding out the hard way.</p><p>But then again, spun that way it wouldn't be news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that MS was in on the development , and we can assume the requirements were known , it 's a straight out case of vendor ( and consultants ) lying about the capabilities of the project , and customer later finding out the hard way.But then again , spun that way it would n't be news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that MS was in on the development, and we can assume the requirements were known, it's a straight out case of vendor (and consultants) lying about the capabilities of the project, and customer later finding out the hard way.But then again, spun that way it wouldn't be news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577905</id>
	<title>More a problem of Admins and Programmers</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1246644900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though I'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft, I have to say that it's probably possible to create a working solution using those tools.</p><p>However the big problem is that there are tools attracting bad programmers and admins. For example most Windows admins know very little about their system, because it seems you can live without it. Another example is PHP, it looks so simple people don't care about what they are doing. The result is insecure code. It's simmilar with C or C++, just ask around how many programmers believe integer overflows or buffer overflows are not a serious problem.</p><p>So Microsoft's fault is that they attract idiots and keep people dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I 'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft , I have to say that it 's probably possible to create a working solution using those tools.However the big problem is that there are tools attracting bad programmers and admins .
For example most Windows admins know very little about their system , because it seems you can live without it .
Another example is PHP , it looks so simple people do n't care about what they are doing .
The result is insecure code .
It 's simmilar with C or C + + , just ask around how many programmers believe integer overflows or buffer overflows are not a serious problem.So Microsoft 's fault is that they attract idiots and keep people dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft, I have to say that it's probably possible to create a working solution using those tools.However the big problem is that there are tools attracting bad programmers and admins.
For example most Windows admins know very little about their system, because it seems you can live without it.
Another example is PHP, it looks so simple people don't care about what they are doing.
The result is insecure code.
It's simmilar with C or C++, just ask around how many programmers believe integer overflows or buffer overflows are not a serious problem.So Microsoft's fault is that they attract idiots and keep people dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571483</id>
	<title>Re:Elementary, my near noob</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1246634940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020722.jpg" title="penny-arcade.com" rel="nofollow">M$?</a> [penny-arcade.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ ?
[ penny-arcade.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$?
[penny-arcade.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570981</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28601095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28580447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28615253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28575153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28579599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28584247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1216250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28592631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573265
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28601095
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28584247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573869
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574573
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572825
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583379
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571735
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28575153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28579599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28579315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28574509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28570887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28580447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28577559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28571449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28615253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28583149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28578679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28575427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28572415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28576349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28573477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1216250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1216250.28582591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
