London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong

Re:London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong by alecco on Monday March 07, 2011 @08:31AM (#2297019)

It was a counter reaction. The previous system's advertisement campaign was very strong and I remember people implying it was a better solution than a Linux/FOSS alternative. Microsoft had a huge campaign and it was one of their main examples on what their new .Net platform was capable of doing.

Also this article has nothing to do with downtime but with issues on closing prices.

The LSE acquired a mostly unknown company in Sri Lanka to code this system.

And on top of that, the LSE is extremely opaque and old school about reporting what was wrong with their systems every time something went belly up. They never have a post-mortem and regularly blame "human error" without giving details.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong by recoiledsnake on Monday March 07, 2011 @10:27AM (#2297386)

These seem to indicate systemic problems with the LSE. That makes me wonder if it was really justified to blame Windows Server and SQL Server the last time around.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong by CountSessine on Monday March 07, 2011 @03:23PM (#2298521)

That makes me wonder if it was really justified to blame Windows Server and SQL Server the last time around

Maybe, maybe not. But Microsoft probably should have thought twice about featuring TradElect as a star .NET deployment given the generally poor development practices that seem to have been at work here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong by regularfry on Monday March 07, 2011 @03:07PM (#2298467)

I don't know. In this case the outsourcer seems to be a lowest-bidder offshorer. Last time it was Microsoft. I don't know if there's anything that can be learnt from this.

[ Parent | on HN ]