Wall Street Embraces Linux 505
Brian Stretch was among several
who sent in this story about Merrill Lynch
switching to Linux, this is interesting because it's actually companywide.
Talks about Red Hat, Linux threatening Unix and so on.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wall Street Embraces Linux
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know I would feel safer if the air traffic control is on Linux rather than any version of Windows...
Oh Man!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm going to submit a story every time some company installs Linux! Because, it's evidently front page material, and people must care a lot! I can just imagine some Linux zealot cracking open a bottle of champage-nya now that there's one more on the band wagon!
Short version: Yeah, companies are installing Linux. Woo-fucking-hoo. Do we have to know about every one?
Re:Linux not really "free"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me this article wasn't very well written, you have to read between the lines a lot. I'd like to know more about how they're implementing it: distribution, updates, standard image, etc
Im not trolling... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem I see is, so many people are trying to force feed the linux solution down peoples throats. Yes, advocate linux, but dont throw your hand. Managers and the ones who make business decisions like thinking they stumbled upon a great idea. For the most part, they wont take kindly to some geeky kid in IT telling them "we can save bunches of money with linux"... they have to talk to their buddies on the golf course, etc etc..
To sum it up...dont fret, in time, linux _will_ dominate
Man this scares me (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Easy Slashbots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (Score:3, Insightful)
God yes. On the other hand, even as a GPL bigot and Linux zealot, I wouldn't want Linux running air traffic control stuff either, not yet anyhow. This is what QNX, et al, were *made* for.
On the other hand, who knows? One of the great things about Linux is that in a few years it may just be good enough for air traffic control, etc.
Re:correction taco... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is killing Big Iron. It's hurting Sun in particular. People started running Linux so they could get UNIX-like functionality and performance on their cheap Intel boxes. Whether it has reached that point of being as good as Solaris/AIX/IRIX is debatable, but the fact is people are dumping their UNIX boxes for cheap x86 boxes running Linux.
What does that mean for the bigger picture? Say goodbye to high-performance computing outside the Intel-compatible world. PA-RISC? Dead. Alpha? Dead. MIPS? Not even close to competing anymore. SPARC? Future questionable. PowerPC? It's an okay chip, but the outdated I/O on Apple machines negates any (debatable in the first place) performance advantage it might have.
What might seem good at first (more Linux everywhere) is bad for the future of high-performance computing.
Linux seems to be helping shore up Intel's hardware monopoly, as well as lengthening the lifespan of the decrepit x86 architecture.
You have to consider other cost (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Linux not really "free"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux not really "free"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Competitive advantage (Score:3, Insightful)
LOTUS DOMINO ON LINUX (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course Linux is no solution to Exchange, but Lotus Domino on Linux would be.... as long as you don't mind using Kaspersky as your antivirus product because McAfee/Norton/Trend do not yet support Domino-on-Linux yet. You can also do the smart thing and keep an Amavis-Sendmail relay between your internal Domino server and the Internet too
Re:DIY Business? (Score:2, Insightful)
Addressing your points (Score:2, Insightful)
If you inisist on using outlook, there was a solution: OpenMail [openmail.com] but HP decided to kill it. Which, btw, everyone is assuming it's Sun they are replacing (a safe assumption) but with goofy I'll-do-a-merger-to-keep-my-job-and-blame-company- problmes-on-someone-other-that-I Carly at the helm of HP, I wouldn't be surpised if it's HP they need to drop.
Bynari [bynari.net] is another calendaring solution that has been mentioned before for Linux. No, it's not open source, free, or even just like exchange; but it works, is virus free, etc.
As for point 2, I've done the virus thing with a cheesy script on each system, and other such lame sysadmin duct tape approaches taking care of windoze network unfriendly boxes.
Your primary point, the question, "just what are they replacing" is a good one and your conclusions are reasonable. My problem is what I sense inbetween the lines. Your point is that exchange makes outlook really easy to deal with and win2k server takes care of windoze boxes easier. Well, ya got me there. Yup, Linux isn't as good as windows in dealing with windows non-sense. I don't suspect it ever will be, EVEN if they were to play nice as Mr. Stallman suggested [linuxtoday.com] oh so long ago. You are suggesting that linux will never be ready for IT b/c IT runs windows clients. This doesn't have to be. Things in a linux server/win client enterprise would have to be different. In some ways it would be better and some ways not. There are of course growing pains - I'm sure you're one of the millions that have had to suffer through years and years of M$'s growing pains, mistakes and lies. Now, "their solutions" (ahem) are mostly workable on few commodity (cough, cough) systems - such as the most expensive Intel systems you could buy. That's one approach. Another might be to buy an old unix server (say, a Sun E450) and centralize each offices services to one reliable system.
My point is that the gap between windows and unix/linux is getting smaller in some ways. Unix apps can be easily recompiled to run (slowly) on your pc, and that win box can now pretend to be a newtwork server. Large unix apps can now sort-of slowly run on small linux installations. But the windows boxes can't scale the same was as unix apps, and certianly can't scale as far and will never scale as big. They are different things, and it is very disingenuous for you to say that unix/linux will never cut it in IT b/c it's not windows. Unix can now go big or go small, and it always goes smart and dresses in style. Don't expect to run a better network with out some effort and growing pains - and if you're running windows, always expect to spend a lot more. This why they are replacing unix and you can bet that if this pilot project goes well, windows will be phased out.
Understandable misunderstandings... (Score:2, Insightful)
...since this came from Forbes. Not exactly where one would expect to find the most accurate information about technology.
When I read:
I found myself laughing out loud.
Has anyone successfully found Microsoft accountable for broken software? Or CA? Or any software vendor for that matter?
Has anyone heard of Red Hat or any other Linux distributor making people pay licensing fees for the use of the software? Of course, Forbes is confusing a license to use the software (the sort of license that Oracle, for example, makes you pay for) with a support contract (which companies like Oracle make you pay for in addition to the usage license).
The day when Red Hat starts asking people to pay for license keys that have to be loaded on each system or pieces of paper that they need to keep on file is the day they should put a big ``Going Out Of Business'' sign in front of their corporate offices.
Not that I'd expect an old money magazines like Forbes to really understand the difference between Linux and other software products but how difficult would it have been for the writer to have called up someone in the OSS movement to get a comment and, perhaps, make sure the article didn't come off sounding like it was written by someone totally clueless.
Jeez...
Re:Favorite quote (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're just being sarcastic, she seems to have a better grasp on the risks of using Linux than you do. The question of ownership is sticky - the owner of any particular bit of code might be difficult to determine and impossible to track down. This has some bearing on her question about patent violations which is frankly quite legitimate. Consider a company that is using open source software and has made changes to it to meet internal requirements. Suppose then a software company comes along claiming infringement of patented methods in that software package - is the company using the software liable if the software is found to be infringing because in changing the source they have become authors of the software? (Obviously not the sole authors, but said company may have much deeper pockets than the original authors.) I don't think this situation has yet been litigated, making the risk of liability difficult to quantify.
Basically, if you think current copyright law has a chilling effect on open source development, wait until the big dogs break out their patent portfolios. It's gonna get ugly.
-Isaac
Re:Favorite quote (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there are lots of legal implications of open-source software that just haven't been thought out, or tested in court. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which some previously unthought-of aspect of IP law renders the GPL invalid. Suddenly everybody who uses open source software must either stop using it, or pay a licensing fee to the license holders.
Don't brand it as FUD; I don't intend to make people afraid of open source software. I'm just trying to say that the lady has a point.
Re:Large Corporation point-of-view (Score:1, Insightful)
Any thoughts on your company contracting with CodeWeavers for a super-duper version of Wine that would enable you to keep running those 120 apps until the ports to Linux, on your own schedule, could be completed?.. Gotta cost less than all those MS licenses, and you get to keep the results.
Why I write these posts. (Score:4, Insightful)
I write these kinds of posts (pro-Microsoft, etc.) for two reasons:
1) People respond with better answers to a post filled with half-truths or a post from someone who they believe is "misinformed";
2) I really do want to know what corporations use if they don't use Microsoft products.
This about it this way: the sales people at Microsoft are out there every day selling their product. They are out there telling your PHB every day that Exchange is better, that SAMBA won't do the half of what Windows 2000 Server will do, and that an all-Windows infrastructure is the way to go.
The real question is: what can you tell your PHB to dispute that?
That's why I write these. Often, the best way to find alternatives is to say something decidedly biased toward one camp. Come on, admit it -- you'd much rather hit "reply" to someone who is wrong or half-right than someone who says "What is the best solution for xxx?" You're also much more likely to provide real, concrete evidence that your product is superior instead of just saying "Hey, Product Y will do xxx! Go check out their homepage."
Now, I can take this information and hand it to the guy who is looking for an Exchange alternative, and I can say, "Look, why don't we check out Products Y and Z, because they might really fit the bill." I can then hand him what is basically a brochure describing migration problems and benefits of changing to the other products. Not only have I provided a solution, but I haven't asked you for bullet points -- I've asked you to prove that your product is better.
It's marketing, pure and simple. I learn infinitely more by writing what I hear from Microsoft salespeople and having Slashdotters prove it wrong than I would asking a question somewhere. Plus, I get to hear and make contact with people who have actually used the product. And in some cases, I get people admitting that the Microsoft solution is the best one out there, in which case that is what I will take back to my customers.
Try it sometime. You might be surprised at what you can learn.
Re:Air traffic control (Score:3, Insightful)
DD(x) [defenselink.mil] is the future of the Navy. The current fleet of battleships run a system called AEGIS [navy.mil] which runs on top of HP-UX. NT has very limited use in non-tatical systems. You have to understand, the Navy has a _very_ strict QA and development process and systems don't actually get used tactically for almost 10 years it seems.
The future OS to run on DD(x) is up for grabs right now. MS federal systems has teamed up with the Blue Team so if they win, expect to see MS having a bigger role. That's not necessarily a bad thing though because the system is based on Java so not as many bad things can happen. Either way, with the thorough QA process, they should even be able to configure NT to be secure after 10 years.
Re:Large Corporation point-of-view (Score:1, Insightful)
What are the applications that your company needs? This is where the community comes in. The app that are needed be yours and other companies should be posted so that reverse engineering can get started. So that some where down the when M$ says pay up or else, you have an out.
Re:Merrill Lynch was at the VS .Net Launch (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice how Mr. Vielehr is identified as CTO, but there is the phrase "private client technology" behind that... That's probably a separate division of the company and they do things differently than other divisions.
The way this Linux article is worded, they are replacing some of their systems with Linux... most likely existing Sun systems from the sound of it. But that doesn't preclude that they also have a great many Windows systems, both desktop and server.