Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Unix Operating Systems Software Linux IT

NY Stock Exchange Moves To Linux 272

Posted by kdawson
from the bye-bye-big-iron dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Even the old mainframe strongholds, the financial markets, are moving away from big iron. The New York Stock Exchange is one of them, as it's leaving the mainframe for AIX and Linux. They're doing it to save money; it seems that transactions are going to cost half as much on Unix and Linux as they did on the mainframe." The first phase of the transition happened last Monday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NY Stock Exchange Moves To Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by MrNaz (730548) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @09:59AM (#19160911) Homepage

    In Soviet Russia, Linux-running, chair throwing, Beowulf clusters of shark overlords with laserbeams on their heads welcome you, you insensitive clods!

    Cancel or Allow?

    Wait, what are we talking about again?

  • by ookabooka (731013) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:01AM (#19160955)
    Anyone reminded of that ad about the guys printing the newspaper that says they use Windows because its more reliable and stuff? That wasn't for the NYSE was it? I see that ad all the time on Slashdot and roll my eyes every time :-p
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Bicx (1042846)
      That was the London Stock Exchange
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Fifty Points (878668)
      That was for the London Stock Exchange
    • The article made it sound like they were moving from some other form of Unix server. But it didn't actually state *what* server type they were moving from.

      Then again, I typically don't think of MS as a mainframe os provider, usually I think of stuff like VMS, HPUX and AIX.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kadin2048 (468275) *
        Based on other parts of the article I assumed that it was an IBM mainframe of some sort; at ~1200 MIPS it must have been a fairly big one, although one assumes nothing too recent, or they probably wouldn't be spending a whole lot of money to replace it right now.

        I'd be interested to know if someone has any information or more educated guesses on what they probably have.

        (Humm ... wonder how they'll get rid of it. Everybody keep your eye on eBay!)
        • The disks I can probably tell you

          secure whole-disk wipe applications + band saw.
        • I assumed that it was an IBM mainframe of some sort; at ~1200 MIPS it must have been a fairly big one

          I dunno. A fairly moderate Linux server here at the office that cost about $5K several months ago is 16,000 bogomips.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)

          TFA said 1600MIPS in the first line. Note that they are moving from an old IBM mainframe to AIX on P-series and Linux on HP x86 machines. AIX on P-series is a serious platform, and it's being sold by IBM as a mainframe replacement.

          What TFA didn't say was how much was moving to AIX and how much to Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if the move is mostly to AIX, since moving from one IBM big iron system to another is well supported.

    • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:10AM (#19161145) Journal
      Windows isn't more reliable ... but the programmers might be a little more sympathetic to user needs ...

      "Okay, so how do I register the exchange of a convertible bond on Linux?"
      "Er... why would you want to do that?"
      "Um ... just trust me on this one ... people like them."
      "Well, what's a convertible bond?"
      "It's where the holder gets a fixed interest payment and then at maturity, has the option to get a fixed amount of cash, or a fixed amount of stock, his choice."
      "That's stupid, you don't need that."
      "Um, look, dude, people trade them, so the software has to handle it."
      "Well, that's really just a bond attached to a stock option. So just enter it that way."
      "Yeah, but in the financial world, it's one transaction."
      "Okay ... so when someone buys one, register an 'option purchase' plus a 'bond purchase' by going under this menu ... then use this 'merge' feature ..."
      "Holy **** dude, this is a common transaction, why do I have do go through all that every time someone buys a convertible bond?"
      "Well, people don't even really buy them that much, do they?"
      "I give up."
      • "Okay ... so when someone buys one, register an 'option purchase' plus a 'bond purchase' by going under this menu ... then use this 'merge' feature ..."

        should be

        "Okay ... so when someone buys one, register an 'option purchase' plus a 'bond purchase' by piping these commands together on the command line... then use this 'merge' feature ..."

        OK, yeah, that's a decade ago, but it still seemed funny to me.
      • by Lehk228 (705449) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:29AM (#19161495) Journal
        the windows version just assumes if you select cash once to always do cash, unless you edit the registry key autoSelectMaturityAction to false
    • It's Ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saudadelinux (574392) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:39AM (#19161671)
      ...that the OS so many think of as some kind of IP-lethal, grubby commie hippy project is now running a goodly part of Capitalism Itself. The worm has turned, and eats itself!
  • by Timesprout (579035) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:03AM (#19160975)
    The bulk of the savings seem to be coming from reduced hardware and maintenance costs by getting rid of the mainframe and the savings are the reason they are doing it.
  • by name*censored* (884880) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:06AM (#19161057)
    >>They're doing it to save money

    Really? The NYSE aren't doing it purely support the FOSS community? Dang, and I thought I knew the NYSE better than that..
  • hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nomadic (141991) * <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:06AM (#19161059) Homepage
    What about stability issues? I'd think that these machines would have to be a little bit more robust than linux is capable of being at the moment.
    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xzvf (924443) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:17AM (#19161265)
      That's a good question, but on Wall Street, speed and latentcy are becoming more importantant factors than stabiltiy. That's the reason why most brokerages locate their primary data center in Manhatten, or co-locate with the NYSE. A crash that effects everybody equally is preferable to odd processing delays. No data is better than slow data is an old mantra in the trading feild, and even more important when trading is triggered electronically and milliseconds count.
      • i disagree (Score:3, Insightful)

        by portscan (140282)
        while i might be willing to grant you that for individual trading firms, speed is more important than stability, you cannot make that argument for the whole stock exchange. when morgan stanley or some hedge fund loses connectivity, they stop making money for a few hours. no big deal really. if the NYSE goes down, it's a major economic catastrophe. stability and capacity are the most important things! obviously they need speed to keep up with the demands of the traders, but that just translates to high
        • by Darth (29071)
          hile i might be willing to grant you that for individual trading firms, speed is more important than stability, you cannot make that argument for the whole stock exchange. when morgan stanley or some hedge fund loses connectivity, they stop making money for a few hours. no big deal really. if the NYSE goes down, it's a major economic catastrophe. stability and capacity are the most important things! obviously they need speed to keep up with the demands of the traders, but that just translates to high volume
    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      what stability issues?
    • Good point. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ayanami Rei (621112) *
      But then, if you run say RHEL 4 (2.6.9) or Slackware 10 on a nice piece of kit then you get AIX-like stability. It's when you use fancier, newer features (i.e. experimental filesystems) or more esoteric hardware that you can get yourself into trouble.
      And even so, if they're clustering it then you'd expect they'd build in node failover and monitoring, so a hard freeze should trigger a watchdog and someone goes and kicks it in the head (if that isn't automated). And you log it, just in case a node is actually
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Thundersnatch (671481)

        or more esoteric hardware that you can get yourself into trouble

        A high-performance transaction processing system is likely to require "esoteric" hardware. Like extreme processor counts, high-throughput I/O subsystems, TCP/IP offload, InfiniBand clustering interconnects, hot-swap memory and CPUs... the sort of things hardware vendors support only on Z/OS, AIX or Solaris (and maybe Windows).

      • The problem with HA isn't so much hard freezes, power supplies blowing, or even disks failing. None of which happen very often, and for which we have workarounds already.

        It's things like application processes hanging, zombie processes etc which can make HA a bit dicey. Not to mention admin error.

         
    • 'these machines would have to be a little bit more robust than linux is capable of being at the moment'

      What stability issue, and do you have an citations for major data loss because of the stability issue. Is IBM fibbing when it refers to its legendary stability.

      'One of Linux's claims to fame is its legendary stability [ibm.com]'

      'Manufacturer moves to Linux for stability [computerworld.com.au]'

      'As the manufacturer had already used Linux, it was aware of its great stability [cxolinux.com]. SAP, combined with IBM and Linux offered the best deal
    • by TheLink (130905)
      Huh, it's just the NYSE. The last I checked it doesn't even run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The fact that they ran on IBM mainframes already shows to me that they can cope with scheduled downtime.

      You can fix stuff AFTER trading hours. So even Windows on decent x86 servers would be OK.

      If you have stuff that MUST run ALL the time with absolute minimal downtime (including even scheduled downtime) then that's a different ballgame.

      That'll be stuff like VMS clustering or Tandem and then you're talking about st
  • by Spookticus (985296) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:07AM (#19161101)
    Thats one small step for penguins, one giant leap for penguin kind. Now I can invest in Linux companies while I am doing it on a Linux machine and the transaction being processed by Linux :)
  • by brunascle (994197) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:08AM (#19161117)
    ctrl-f tells me they didnt mention microsoft or windows. if it wasnt on *nix before, what was it on?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mchinand (22369)
      Here are some of IBM's non-Unix mainframe OSs. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/ [ibm.com]. They could be using some other vendor as well.
    • I had a job interview down at nyse about six years ago (and I'm glad I didn't get it - someone blew up the two towers next door about six months later). Part of their infrustructure is on OpenVMS/C++. I know these boxes were doing something highly critical, but I don't know exactly what. Since the stories aren't mentioning replacing these OpenVMS boxes, I would assume that some of the critical processing is still happening on these systems.
  • Licensing Fees (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ngarrang (1023425) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:11AM (#19161165) Journal
    In my brief experience with an IBM AS/400 (before it was renamed), it seemed like my old company was paying as much annual licensing and support fees as the system originally cost. The software we ran got more expensive as the system went faster. I never quite understand that pricing scheme, since the software didn't actually do anything NEW.

    Good move for the NYSE.
    • Re:Licensing Fees (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Clover_Kicker (20761) <clover_kicker@yahoo.com> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:26AM (#19161443)
      IBM will support your old hardware almost forever.

      They don't enjoy it, though - they have to stock a zillion old parts for a zillion old architectures, they have to train new guys on stuff that was obsolete before they got out of diapers.

      They gradually crank up maintenance fees to "encourage" you to upgrade to new kit that is easier to support.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by grub (11606)

      The software we ran got more expensive as the system went faster. I never quite understand that pricing scheme, since the software didn't actually do anything NEW.

      You bought the more expensive IBM OSs, those ones have less NOPs compiled in.

    • The 400's pricing is very artificial (just like Vista's new licensing restrictions on virtualization). It's about money- not about any underling increase in costs on IBM's part.

      The 400's reliability however-- is very real. If I ever have a large enough system that has to "just work", it goes on the 400. Stuff that only has to work 99% of the time- that's okay for PC's.

      However, IBM is decimating their own ranks by offshoring and outsourcing their AS/400 customers. It earns them some money now for service
    • If you have a box that scales from a few users to multiple thousands, how do you price the software? The tiered pricing is an attempt to make it close to user based on the assumption that the larger machines are serving more users. The alternative would be to have actual user based pricing.
  • by robably (1044462) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:11AM (#19161167) Journal
    In case anyone needs to look it up, Linux is in Eastern Europe between Serbia and Romania.

    Happy to help.
  • Career Opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Black-Man (198831) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:11AM (#19161171)
    I think this is only the beginning of large migrations. To have both 3270 and Linux skills (along w/ DB2) right now would be a killer skills combo.
    • Not really.

      Other zOS skills are more useful, particularly the Sysprogging skills like JCL, console commands, rexx, TSO and ISPF.

      The Linux skills to have in this area are the System Admin ones like bash scripting, setting up Apache and other server stuff, using ssh, etc.
  • Well, the migration strategy seems interesting, although not especially surprising; they've eschewed emulation strategies that might incur a performance penalty in favor of some company that actually recompiles the old COBOL and IBM JCL code for modern architectures and does a lot of in-house QA (and, one assumes, has really good support...). They're using smaller IBM AIX servers to actually run the code in the new system, with the HP Linux machines basically doing all the I/O and general feeding of data.

    I'm a little surprised that IBM didn't manage to sell them on a new mainframe, or at least on its own clustered solution; or that they didn't ditch IBM completely and go with somebody else (what I'd suspect if somehow someone at IBM had really stepped on the wrong foot).

    There's not a whole lot of information in TFA about their old system, which actually sounds like it must be fairly neat; it's only described as a "1,600 MIPS mainframe" and then from context it's clear that it's an IBM of some sort. Another surprising thing is that they complain that the software licenses for it, among other things, are prohibitively expensive -- you'd think that IBM, in danger of losing a mainframe customer completely to commodity kit, would cut them some sort of a cheap-or-free deal on the software just to keep them around and on the support contracts. (I really gotta wonder if someone really boned this up; I mean, if you can't keep a mainframe contract at a place like the NYSE, really, what are you doing?)
    • by metamatic (202216)

      I'm a little surprised that IBM didn't manage to sell them on a new mainframe, or at least on its own clustered solution; or that they didn't ditch IBM completely and go with somebody else (what I'd suspect if somehow someone at IBM had really stepped on the wrong foot).

      Indeed. It's a bit of a strange migration. To pick another detail, why are they switching system management software at the same time? The Tivoli software they were using will manage Linux and AIX just as well as it manages mainframes. Thr

    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      I also have to wonder why HP servers running Linux? IBM still has X86 servers. One vender for all the hardware should have made life simpler for them. Plus I would think IBM would have given them a deal better deal with more boxes.
  • by packetmon (977047) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:16AM (#19161247) Homepage
    Microsoft says New York Stock Exchange infringes on Microsoft's patent "Letter C in System". Microsoft broad patent invoking the use of the letter C on a file system has some industry experts worried. "We were completely unaware that Microsoft had the rights to the letter c on any operating system. This is going to cost us enormously. We thought we would save twice as much money, but with this frivolous lawsuit pending, we stand to lose four times as much" stated an anonymous expert at the NYSE." Microsoft's shared plummeted after an irrate Linux developer injected a logicbomb code on NYSE servers.

  • by Ace905 (163071) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:16AM (#19161259) Homepage
    The article makes it sound like transactions are on a cost-per basis, "[Francis Feldman] estimates the move will halve the cost of transactions" -- does that make any sense?

    I think the author of the article got into a tangent with him about how many transactions they do, and what their operating costs are and then incorrectly made the correlation that there is a cost-per-transaction from a computing stand-point. That can't be true. You don't insert fifties into the A: drive.

    Look at it this way: If they make the big switch, and all of a sudden they can handle double-the-transactions per day - that would halve the cost of transactions. Only there's not going to all of a sudden be double-the-transactions. They're still working with the same number of transactions.

    If they halve their staff, and they do the same number of transactions than that halves their costs. But what if tuesday is a slow day, and they only do 60% of their normal business? They're still paying for all the staff, electricity and third party support.

    Am I wrong, or is it unlikely they can correlate a cost per transaction in this case?

    ---
    This is completely free. [douginadress.com]
    • "Transaction cost" is a common metric in the financial-processing world; rather than just talking about cost-per-quarter, they take the cost of the equipment and then divide it out by the number of transactions they process.

      It's not the greatest metric in the world, but it does provide some ability to compare "efficiency" across systems. But it's a little misplaced in all but the most predictable workloads, because it's not like your operating costs are really going to fluctuate with the number of transact
    • Only there's not going to all of a sudden be double-the-transactions. They're still working with the same number of transactions.

      Problem is, transactions are following same exponential growth pattern as... CPU speed... but faster.
    • Well, it sounds like the "transaction cost" is actually the unit fixed cost of their hardware. That is, take the budged total fixed cost you spent on servers and divide by the budgeted number of transactions. Add this to your other unit costs and this is how much you'll charge for each customer's transaction. Now if you buy faster and cheaper servers, and if you can do the same number of transactions at a cheaper total cost, your unit transaction cost is going to be cheaper.

      An alternative to the above is th
  • NASDAQ (Score:4, Informative)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:22AM (#19161347)
    The NASDAQ also uses Unix. They use fault-tolerant Unix boxes from HP (formerly Tandem).
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:22AM (#19161361) Homepage Journal
    To test Clerity, Feldman and his team collected some batch and CICS application code, sent it to Clerity and said he would be at Clerity's development center in 24 hours to see the results. Clerity passed.


    Now that's service. I realize it's only compiling one code into another form but being able to take the code, compile it into what you need AND still have it work correctly in a 24 hour period is no easy feat.

    If nothing else, other firms will look at this migration to an aix/linux platform and see the cost benefits of doing so. After all, if the NYSE has done it, it can't be a bad thing.

  • Would anyone be surprised if the exchange captured most of those cost savings for themselves?

    I think another post is onto something:
    1. IBM screwed up the relationship so badly that the NYSE is walking away.
    2. IBM has some other, greater, revenue opportunity.
    3. Something is going on inside IBM where the sales people can steal each other's customers.
    • Buying faster and cheaper hardware will increase the exchange's profit margin, which will give them the opportunity to pass on the cost savings. If competition exists, they'll be able to lower their prices if necessary. I don't think competition is that fierce, so this will probably just result in a profit increase.
  • Unikix has been around since the early 90's. Moving gobs of COBOL II, JCL, and JES2/3 over has been done and redone. The real challenge is what to do with CICS? CICS code can be pretty damn hard to port with the same performance criteria. A well built CICS system can approach an RTOS in real time transaction performance. But the architectural complexity is a hard problem to solve in another system architecture. For instance one way to get CICS to fly is to run it as a continuous communications task in its o
  • transactions are going to cost half as much on Unix and Linux as they did on the mainframe

    And I'm sure they'll pass those savings along to the consumer. :-)
  • Misleading Headline (Score:3, Informative)

    by SpaFF (18764) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:32AM (#19161545) Homepage
    Actually, according to TFA they are doing most of the work on AIX with some Linux boxes on the front end for "ftp" data transfers.

  • actually it's aix (Score:4, Informative)

    by portscan (140282) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:35AM (#19161595)
    the trades will be managed by aix and linux will just be used for "ftp transfers on the front end." this would be bulk data transfers, not data feeds and all i/o as other might have suggested. i can pretty much guarantee you that the nyse is not processing trades and sending out live market data (to bloomberg, retuters, etc.) by ftp.

    also, i am somewhat concerned by this move in light of the trading disruption at the end of february where the existing (mainframe, i presume) trading systems could not handle all the trades and the data feeds were way behind the actual prices of the securities. i know the nyse is a public for-profit company now, so it's silly to talk about "public interest" but shouldn't there be some regulation about the capacity of their IT infrastructure to make sure that their cost-cutting doesn't cause another 4% decrease in stock market value on an abnormally high trading day?
  • Enough of the ignorant "Linux is the greatest!" drivel...

    They made a bad financial desicion.

    Any savings they think they made in the hardware, licensing and support costs will be lost many times over as soon as the system makes a small error or goes down.

    This is the reason why financial transactions still use mainframes.

    Mainframes [wikipedia.org] are unique in their integration and optimization between the hardware and the operating system they run. It gives you a level of performance, integrity and fault tolerance

    • by C_Kode (102755)
      I beg to differ. It's not 1997 anymore. Technology has changed since then and you can in fact get full fault tolerance with proper implementation.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by einar2 (784078)
      Ahhh! The reliability myth of the mainframe! One of my favorites.

      Most of the time this extremely reliable systems are used to host brittle software written in house. You paid upfront a fortune to receive a system which overall stability is lousy. And why? Because some techies who could not grasp the whole stack went out and bought the best of breed system! It is like driving your Rolls Royce to transport pigs...

      And yes, I work also for a financial institution. We have mainframes because it is so expensive t
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by chrb (1083577)
      > Linux is not a replacement for Mainframes

      Well, that's because Linux is an operating system, and a mainframe is a big computer. In fact, Linux runs on some mainframes. Maybe you meant a cluster of PCs running Linux can't replace a mainframe? In that case, it depends on the mainframe and application, but quite often a Linux is up to the job.

      > They made a bad financial desicion.

      You're right, NYSE and IBM know nothing of financial management. If only they'd come to you for some sound advice before engag
    • You apparently assume that the integration team will be taking stock hardware and putting a vanilla build of RedHat on top of it for these machines. Not hardly, I'd think...

      These machines will (in all likelihood) have very lean customized kernels built for specific hardware device profiles. Wouldn't surprise me to see customized drivers written specifically for said hardware. I can't speak for the HP team, but the SIAC dev teams have some damn smart and capable folks on them. They'll be able to get done
    • by scribblej (195445)
      Mainframes are unique in their integration and optimization between the hardware and the operating system they run. It gives you a level of performance, integrity and fault tolerance which cannot be achieved by taking generic hardware and sticking Linux on top.

      Hey, you tell it to Google.
    • by glwtta (532858)
      I'm gonna go with "What is FUD?"
  • I thought it was well-known that the mission critical NYSE back-end database ran HP NonStop hardware and software (formerly Tandem). The NYSE has lots of systems...I'm sure they are moving some stuff to x86 Linux, but I really doubt they are replacing the NonStop systems with Linux.
  • Too bad... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wandazulu (265281) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @10:54AM (#19161947)
    I worked at a world-wide bank that ran its entire operations on a pair of ES/9000 mainframes from IBM and, while insanely expensive, requiring a full-time staff of 12 people (for each machine), requiring a separate floor on the building, etc. etc., I have still never seen anything that came close to the horsepower these things had. They simply wiped the floor with everything else out there.

    As an example, it calculated a person's balance by starting with their opening balance, then went down the vsam file, adding and subtracting amounts, till it reached the bottom and gave the total. This process was instantaneous, even given all the other things it was doing.

    Sure there are better ways to do it, like storing the data in a real RDMS, using a trigger to update a "balance" field so it's a quick query instead of a lot of calculations, etc., but I wonder if so much of what we do is simply making the best of essentially a hardware deficiency; the baddest Intel-based Linux box probably couldn't do what this 20 year old mainframe can do, so we make it do the same thing but in different ways.

    Working with the mainframe programmers, all Cobol folks, made me think always of that great Dilbert cartoon of the smug Unix guy giving Wally a nickel and saying "get yourself a real computer" ... these people did not worry about efficiency for the most part simply because the machine was so fast, they didn't need to.

    So ultimately it's too bad that mainframes, for all their horsepower, really do resemble, to a certain extent, the moniker "dinosaur" in that their mammoth bulk simply couldn't get them out of the tar pits of cost and space.

    The coda to this is that, once you've used JSO on TSO, every Unix command looks like it's written in the Queen's English by comparison.
  • I never trust cost savings estimates by business leaders.

    They get raises, bonuses and promotions based on cheery estimations and then leave before the full costs come home to roost.

    Still- linux should be a lot less expensive so they have a chance of saving *some* money.
  • by Linuturk (1103599) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @11:26AM (#19162579) Homepage
    I signed up for a slashdot account just to post this screenshot: http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=realityvs adlt1.jpg [imageshack.us]
  • by Danathar (267989) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @11:54AM (#19163181) Journal
    As someone who started their IT career as a mainframe operator in the early 90's, then moved on to UNIX/LINUX It would be very interesting to see if the cost savings actually pan out. Computers don't stop doing the job they are doing just because they get old. Besides, modern "mainframe" computers are all microprocessor based (no more cabinet sized processors) just like all other computers. OS/390 (or whatever IBM is calling nowadays Z...something?) is just about bulletproof.

    I would of LOVED to be in on the powerpoint presentation that convinced NYSE that that dumping their current platform was THE thing to do. It must of been dynamite.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by lp_bugman (623152)
      We are migrating Cobol mainframe applications from OS/360 to micro focus Cobol on i86. For once MC support is much cheaper and hardware maintenance is also cheap compared to IBM mainframe.
  • Rest assured, worried investor, that these savings will be directly passed on to the stockholders of the exchange. You need not fret about dealing with lowered trade prices from your broker any time soon.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...