Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Linux And the Enterprise Environment 136

Posted by Zonk from the good-friends dept.
aword writes "Computerworld cites that private financial services sector have moved to Linux more than any other sector. This too is mostly on the server side only. Enterprisewide linux deployments for desktop users have been few and far between. From the article." From the article: "On the server side, perhaps no single industry has tested Linux's enterprise mettle more than the financial services sector. Companies were facing mounting pressure to cut costs at the turn of the millennium. The Internet bubble was about to burst. Prices were fluctuating wildly. Order volume and data traffic were spiking in the wake of the electronic trading boom. Revenue was not."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux And the Enterprise Environment More

Linux And the Enterprise Environment

Comments Filter:

  • Makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Work Account ( 900793 )
    The coders and engineers working for finance (Wall St. especially) are some of the best in the world and the best salaries in the world.

    They obv. know what they're doing and have chosen Lunix.

    • Line of least resistance (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Donny Smith ( 567043 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:28PM (#13150424)
      I'd say it's rather the fact that it's easier to use Linux to replace those UNIX in such uniform environments - clients are mostly browsers or terminals, clients don't need any special features (as long as they can connect), and servers/apps were UNIX-based anyway, so it really is easy to switch and doesn't matter to the IT guys - as long as it is cheap, it works, and can do what they want, they don't care what it is.

      If Websphere, Weblogic, Oracle and DB2 supported BSD, it could have as well been BSD. I don't think they're Linux funs or anything like that. Business as usual.
      • As a "Joe Geek", I usually recommend Linux for servers because the cost saved in software can be put somewhere it really counts - the server hardware. Most of my clients are small 5-25 station networks. The saved cost of Windows server licenses allows me to bid better hardware, and backup systems. Businesses don't really care about spending money, so long as it's in the budget.
      • My guess is that the deciding factor was momentum. The BSDs are terrific OSs, but they aren't typically seen as driving innovation in the same way as Linux. Not that that's bad, because Linux isn't nearly as reliable as most flavors of BSD. Still, if it were my job, I'd put my money on the one that appeared to have the strongest development support, on both OS and applications levels. That makes Linux the choice, by default.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Informative)

      by blue_teeth ( 83171 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:36PM (#13150474)
      Think Enterprise Computing when you hear SAP. SAP AG are gung-ho on Linux and open source database MySQL MaxDB. SAP have committed themselves on Linux (with pride..that's what their site says). I've worked on SAP on traditional Unices and also on Linux. Many IT Managers (worth their salt) are adopting SAP on Linux. Works like a charm on Mission Critical ERP environment.

      www.sap.com/linux

      Cheers
      BT
    • Not a loose set of assumptions or generlisation at all.

      The majority of those I know working at financial institutions in the city of London and Canary Wharf work with VB6, with means Windows.

      I've seen a little of what they do when I get sent client site, and it's not pretty at all.

      There may be a few people in there that are as brilliant as you suggest, but I would say that it is more likely that Linux has been chosen as a cheap alternative to some of the UNIX distros and that this is mostly a licensing s
      • Um, just so you know, Unix doesn't have "distros". They are a direct result of the Linux/GPL/FOSS situation. Unix, in it's heyday, was worse than MS in licensing terms, and the idea of a "distro" would have given Unix execs aneurysms. Some speculate that the only reason FreeBSD and it's kin exist was simply because they allowed Unix companies to "steal back" future innovations, via the BSD license.
    • One of the principal markets of Sun Microsystems has been financial services [itjungle.com]. During the DotCom Boom, finance companies on Wall Street purchased billions of dollars of Sun equipment.

      In the post-boom era, those same companies are now buying (mainly) x86 boxes and (secondarily) PowerPC servers running Linux. This phenomenon explains why Sun has failed to achieve profitability and revenue growth while both Dell and IBM have been doing well during the last 2 years of the economic recovery. IBM, especially

    • The coders and engineers working for finance (Wall St. especially) are some of the best in the world and the best salaries in the world.

      Bwahahahahahahahaha.

      I worked in IT for a large bank (it's a really Royal Canada Bank) here in Canada for a while, and let me say that it was largely the dregs of the industry (yeah I know - I was there too. I took the job for very specific needs at a specific period of time, which it served admirably). A bunch of bottom-feeder career IT people willing to suck on whateve
    • still it's interesting to see that "one company made the transition from embedded system to desktop operating system." back-to-back articles marveling that Linux is making up ground on a front, with each implying that it had previously only been strong on another front (with one article's front contradicting the other)

  • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • True Story (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rwade ( 131726 )
      Some might suggest that Windows' dominating success in the consumer market flies in the face of the ideal of excellence via consumer.

      However, such an analogy does not apply to Linux. Windows' major shortcoming has always been -- though it has been almost irrelevant, for consumers, with the advent of XP -- its instability, a problem that most admit is not a character of Linux.

      Unfortunately, there is some truth, though, to what Steve Balmer says regarding the true cost of Linux. That's not to say that Linux

    • Re:Consumers Key (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tempest69 ( 572798 )
      The success of linux in any market is almost entirely based on it's suitability. Even as much as I like linux, I wouldn't dream of trying to load RedHat on my parents PC. Linux will manage to gain footholds in areas where it is a suitable technology.

      However a large userbase ala windows will provide a larger developer base, and allow for more applications in a given area.

      Windows has managed to be a monster in the desktop side, but that are a joke in the supercomputing arena. Their clustering systems

      • Re:Consumers Key (Score:3, Insightful)

        by st1d ( 218383 )
        Now, I'm 180 degrees from you on this point. I think Linux is perfect for "parents" (i.e., those who could care less about computing, and just want to use them. For instance, my mom is terrified anytime she uses my dad's computer to check her email, to the point that she's phoned me about some otherwise straightforward items, but when she's using her own system (an old system with Mepis), she's much more relaxed about it. Yes, part of this is that if she messes up dad's computer, she'll have to listen to
        • So, despite the fact that Linux is more difficult to understand fully (it's a much larger and varied system), for those who barely understand the concept of "copy/paste", Linux is a lot more interesting and comforting. After three years, my mom's almost annoying when she brags about how her system isn't taken down when her friend's get infected.

          As far as switching people over to Linux, to me the best candidates are those at the very top and at the very bottom of the computer user spectrum.

          Its great for


    • The ONLY thing preventing Linux from "consuming" the consumers market is education.

      Most people simply have never heard of Linux or even the concept of a free operating system.

      They use the OS that came with their computer; they learned the OS that came with their FIRST computer or their first corporate job.

      That simple.

      Once somebody either makes a Linux distro that is IDENTICAL to Windows (unlikely, although Xandros gets close) OR figures out how to make Linux a household word AND figures out how to make

  • Commodity HW, customizable code - win/win (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rkhalloran ( 136467 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:21PM (#13150387) Homepage
    The techs can look over the code, tweak where needed, and run it on commodity hardware at a big upfront savings. The *ix heritage means they're already well up on running the OS and can port over their apps with little effort. What's not to like?

    • Not just *nix moving (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:28PM (#13150425) Journal
      I had a friend that was at the chicago stock exchange 5-7 years ago. At that time, he helped move them from VMS to Windows. It turned out that they were having all sort of issues and outlandish costs. So they switched up to Linux. Apparently, it was a bit of work, but their costs have gone below what the VMS was costing them (not to mention what Windows was).

      Interestingly, he moved to a software company that owns a big chunk of the futures industry. Up till recently, they have been doing windows, but are now quietly working on Linux products for the trader desktop. Apparently, they have customers insisting on it.
    • ...run it on commodity hardware...

      My guess is that serious financial is not done on run-of-the-mill "commodity" hardware.

      • I bet that the poster's idea is that one can run mission critical financial software on commodity hardware with Linux.
        • I bet that the poster's idea is that one can run mission critical financial software on commodity hardware with Linux.

          One can do many things. Some of them are not recommended. Like running "mission critical" applications on commodity hardware. Not a good idea, and any serious financial house probably doesn't. I don't think I would want to run my investments through a company that runs "mission critical" applications on vanilla boxes. Just not a well thought out idea.

          • If they can keep the same statistical level of reliability by running a pair of Dell Deminsions running Linux and at a lower cost, would you pass the company on your search for investment managers?

            What if they charged you 6 bucks a trade instead of 7?

            If Linux enables you do do this, to save money by taking advantage of the current weak computer prices while maintaining a quality setup, why the heck not?
      • The financial market had been a huge buyer of Sun and IBM midrange equipment. While I don't see some brokerage going out and buying a pallet of white box systems at the local flea market, the cost of even high-end x86 equipment is markedly lower than what they've been accustomed to.
      • My guess is that serious financial is not done on run-of-the-mill "commodity" hardware.

        Well, it might be better stuff from HP, Dell, or IBM, but don't kid yourself, it's still commodity hardware.

      • Then it isn't done on Windows either. And never will be.

        But the fact of the matter is that "non-commodity" hardware is being replaced every day in corporations by commodity hardware and, as long as the SYSTEM design is right, companies see two to ten times better performance at one-half to one-tenth the cost.

        By system design, I mean you ALLOW for the lessened reliability of commodity hardware by appropriate failover and backup design. Since the commodity hardware is still much less in cost than proprietar
      • My guess is that serious financial is not done on run-of-the-mill "commodity" hardware.

        My guess is that the guidlines for what YOU call "commodity" hardware is quite different than what serious financial calls "commodity" hardware.

        What THEY call commodity hardware, you'd call "OMFG s0 1ee7 m3g4 S3RV3R!", you know, the kind that runs $25,000. (instead of $250,000)
      • Why not? Because it "might break"? All hardware breaks. If you can't afford downtime, you just build enough redundancy into your system to allow for for it. You can do that with a little expensive hardware or a lot of cheap hardware. Either way, you allow for Murphy's Law -- you don't waste a lot of money trying to repeal it.
    • You're also leaving out that with free/open code you don't have to worry about products reaching "end of life" cycles or that once your are locked in, you're locked in.

      I'd imagine they would like to use anything that they can support if the rest of the world dies...

  • Great... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, running COBOL applications on Linux... at least they didn't try to convert to EMACS

    _
    Bring it back! [bringbackthecouch.com]

  • Not suprising... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:34PM (#13150455) Homepage

    The finance industry does the most of EVERYTHING in the IT industry. The most Linux, the most Windows, the most COBOL etc... what the IT sector in finance REALLY excels at however is doing "cool stuff" with new technology....

    When Linux really gets big is when those with more concerns buy into it... people in Manufacturing for instance, or in supply chains. Paid less, but normally with a better understanding of what it takes to build a system that lasts 20 years.

    Linux is definately making it in those sectors, and that is better news IMO than the Finance sector.

  • Isn't that obvious? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mpontes ( 878663 )
    In the private sector, ever cent counts. I mean, we're talking about financial services, these people can do the math about the costs. If I worked for a company and had the option of save the company thousands of dollars in software and licenses, that's what I would do, switch to Free alternatives when possible and make my boss happy.

    • Re:Isn't that obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:58PM (#13150586) Journal
      In financial services actually there isn't really an "every cent counts" mentality when it comes to IT. I cannot say I have an unlimited budget, but cost is VERY low on the priority list. The PTB, don't really care about a few hundred thousand (or even million) here and there. It often isn't blinked at spending tens of thousands to just setup an environment to demo some software. When looking at software, we've gone with 500k systems over almost identical systems 80k systems just for some tiny piece of functionality which we didn't even use for over a year.

      IT budgets don't tend to be too tight in wall street shops (as they are seen as key areas for competitive advantage). Its functionaliy and stability that rules. Price is considered, but it trails very distant. Stability/security is why Linux does so well in these environments, not price. Now all that said, MS systsems also are growing pretty well in such environments. Linux is killing Unix in these areas. We used to be a huge IBM Unix shop, but much of that is now Linux. This is where "crital" systems sit. MS Exchange, AD, ect are also getting pretty big. Traditionaly most shops were Notes shops, but because of interagration abilities with document management, fax server, etc, etc third-party software MS often ends up running these systems which aren't so critical because of the extra functionality they offer. I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas.
      • There is a marked strengthening in competition -- weakening in price -- in the financial services industry, especially in trading where fidelity and prudential want priority trades for a penny a share or less.

        The money spent to lower these prices isn't going to come out of the human resources end, because how are you going to execute increasing trading volume with appropriate speed? Where is it going to come from, buying cheaper chairs?

        There is plenty of evidence to suggest that IT budgets on Wall Street
      • "I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas."

        Exactly why I say open source needs to start producing more enterprise class applications. When Linux and open source can handle most enterprise applications, Linux will bury Windows in the enterprise.

        The frameworks are there in open source, and a lot of companies are building enterprise class apps using these frameworks, but there's still a way
    • The important point which you make here is I think that they can do the math about TCO. They apparently came to the conclusion that Linux is the best option for them.

      Can't we use this as real life TCO study?

  • Basic Linux Geek Misunderstanding... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:35PM (#13150471) Homepage
    It's not surprising that Linux is only making inroads in the server market; it is simply not user friendly in the way that most computer users define that concept. In addition, most of the Linux applications out there, regardless of what all the tech-savvy geeks here say, are difficult for most computer users to install. The Linux community's resistance to GUI installers and GUIs in general is also a major block. The Linux market share will grow beyond server when Linux geeks start to understand that not everyone wants to know the details of how a computer and OS work.

    • As a (Linux) server admin I think I can help out.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by msimm ( 580077 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @02:21PM (#13150697) Homepage
      Linux is good on the server. No doubt.

      But most users don't need or want a server on their desktop.

      Until a Linux distro strips the Linux server off the Linux desktop we will continue to have a geeks system being touted as desktop ready. Which is ridiculous.

      There are a lot of other step, but none of it can really be taken seriously until companies/foundations really decide what kind of operating system it is they are working on.

      You can't be everything to everyone.
      • Until a Linux distro strips the Linux server off the Linux desktop we will continue to have a geeks system being touted as desktop ready. Which is ridiculous.

        I don't think it makes much sense to arbitrarily say one can't be the other. If I only install client apps, it's a desktop. If I install server apps, it's a server. If I install both, then it's a geek's machine. My dad is busily playing games (card/tile games mostly), surfing the web and checking email (webmail) from my linux machine. That's what he
        • Linux distribution cost time and money to produce.

          They also exert *some* influence on the software projects they choose to include or to fund.

          Ok so far?

          Linux projects choose to include and fund...

          1) A complete CLI environment, that means supporting, bug-hunt/fixing, managing and updating as necessary.

          2) A complete IOS. This is related to the other, but distinct enough.

          3) A mind-blowing number for possible configurations of webserver. That includes support, updates and management for the oodles o
    • Desktop users are very resistant to any change in their systems at all. In the server market, the underlying system can change significantly while nobody outside of the support staff particularly notices, so it's possible for them to just switch to whatever platform makes them most comfortable. On the desktop, the main thing preventing Linux adoption is really inertia; if GUI installers were such a big deal Windows XP would have displaced Windows 2K by now. As it is, the main thing driving XP growth is ship
    • when Linux geeks start to understand that not everyone wants to know the details of how a computer and OS work

      And so they are most welcome to stay on Windows and forget saying sh*t about Linuxes.

    • This is not true where I work.

      I work for a broker/dealer. We have been phasing out Solaris and Windows servers over the years and replacing them with FreeBSD/OpenBSD, since the owners are both cheap and comfortable with Open Source.

      Ever since the crash, users personal desires have taken a backseat to Cost. This even includes mandating Open Office as a substitute for MS Office whenever possible.

      However, the client machines will stay with windows. The problem is not GUI installers or friendly menus

      • "Ever since the crash, users personal desires have taken a backseat to Cost. This even includes mandating Open Office as a substitute for MS Office whenever possible."

        Exactly my point. CORPORATE users will use whatever the corporation tells them to. And this will be Linux when the below comment is true.

        "However, the client machines will stay with windows. The problem is not GUI installers or friendly menus. It is rather that we are stuck using the software that the clearing firms dictate."

        My other main p
    • Home users might want to do all kinds of crazy things with their computers, and customize them. This can be difficult with Linux. In the enterprise one doesn't have this problem because (1) the admins are probably Ghosting (or similar) the hard drives anyway, eliminating the install -- and (2) the user operate on a predefined, fixed set of apps (not always), which limits the installation and configuration. The It guys can even tune these apps to be more user-friendly. The optimistic outlook (for OSS): 'pow
      • >> Home users might want to do all kinds of crazy things with their computers, and customize them. This can be difficult with Linux.

        You're kidding right? Linux (as evidenced by the
        "scary" number of distros out there) is prime grounds for customization, from cutesy themes to automation projects. Microsoft and Apple have panicked and sued people for doing some of the things that have become commonplace on Linux systems.
    • I wouldn't say that Linux is difficult to install, at least not in an enterprise environment.

      In less time than it takes to install one instance of windows XP, a Linux admin would be able to set up an install server that detects network cards with unknown MAC addresses and installs Linux and whatever other software needed on them fully automatic. If he uses Red Hat, he will even have GUIs to help him do that.

      In other words, when you get a new employee give him a new computer, tell him to plug it in in his

  • RealTime systems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lightyear4 ( 852813 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:38PM (#13150483)
    I imagine realtime, up-to-the-second updates of servers are important in the finance world. I suppose stock exchanges and such have a lot to deal with given the volume and speed of the markets. That said, do such OSes as RTlinux [realtimeli...dation.org] or QNX [qnx.com] have any place here?

    • Re:RealTime systems (Score:3, Informative)

      by malraid ( 592373 )
      I don't think so. RT OSs are targeted at "phisical" enviroments, primarly industrial control or such. Financial services rely mostly on distributed trasactions (a la JTA) or huge single image servers (mainframes running cobol apps) with terminal connections

  • Too much of a coincidence... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:52PM (#13150551)
    This is one of many *recent* articles with the same theme: Linux has/is making headway in the server room but it hasn't broken out into the desktop...

    That Linux is now a major player in the server room has been OLD news for two or three years. What these articles imply is that Linux hasn't/won't make the leap onto the corporate desktop. Just like the arguments several years ago against Linux being a major player in the server room, these articles under estimate the effect of uncounted, free downloads, and the fact that a single copy can be used on many PCs. The Linux desktops where I work have not been included on anyone's count, and I doubt if our circumstance is not unusual. They also over estimate the need for "paid support".
  • If financial institution think it's a better solution, sortof cut MS's TCO argument down..... these are the guys that should know best (should and do being two different things).

  • Not Seeing It (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Sunday July 24, 2005 @01:53PM (#13150560) Homepage
    I'm definitely not seeing it at my company, which is a hedge fund. Maybe it's because I work at a hedge fund that things and the rules are different than the rest of the financial market. But the key issue for us isn't cost. It is reliability. We cannot tolerate downtime at all. The more data we can get continuously, the better we are. Linux is reliable and so is Windows if you have good administrators.

    What's pegging us to Windows are our desktops. Until Excel or an equivalent like Excel runs on Linux, this won't happen. Does Bloomberg run on Linux? Until then, the desktops will stay Windows. So this leads to the servers staying Windows. From our experience, Windows plays better with Windows. MS products don't like to play nice with other companies' products. So our domain controllers, etc. are all Windows. I have to admit, our AD works fine and so do most of our Windows servers. Windows XP on our workstation leaves much room for improvement but Linux isn't an alternative on the desktops. It's not Linux itself but third party software that's making us stay on Windows XP.

    I've been trying to push Linux since I started and haven't made too much progress and I can understand why. Windows works for us. Why undertake the risk of a major overhaul, especially when we know Microsoft products don't like to play nice with non-MS products? We have the money to stay with MS. However, I am happy to say that open source software is making progress. We're in the process of switching to Cacti to monitor our servers. Firefox has caught on with some of our uses and traders (they love tabbed browsing). I've seen a trader reading a book on R (OSS stats software)

    • Almost Forgot (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Comatose51 ( 687974 )
      I know about Open Office and have plans to test it out. However, there are a number of Excel plugins that we use so any Excel replacement must also work with those.
    • Why undertake the risk of a major overhaul, especially when we know Microsoft products don't like to play nice with non-MS products? We have the money to stay with MS.

      Don't worry, hedge funds are probably going to implode [economist.com] in the next year or two and then, if you still have a job, they will be seriously interested in what you have to say about getting the MS vampire off their neck.

    • Re:Not Seeing It (Score:3, Interesting)

      by div_2n ( 525075 )
      Until Excel or an equivalent like Excel runs on Linux

      That's been a reality for a long time now.

      www.codeweavers.com [codeweavers.com]

    • Another post that agrees with my main point: until Linux has enterprise class applications that work together, its adoption by corporations will be slowed. It will happen, since the frameworks are there to build enterprise class apps. It just needs more open source developers to build the apps.

      In other words, somebody needs to build an app that Bloomberg will use rather than use Windows.

      Somebody needs to build plugins for OpenOffice's spreadsheet that does what Excel plugins do.

      Once that is done, Linux
    • Have you thought of using Mac desktops with Linux? It's what we do at work, and it works well for us. One of the things I particularly like about using Linux on servers, is that if something breaks, we can always work out what it is. For example, if an application doesn't seem to be doing what we expect, we can open up the source, and figure out why, it's always a matter of time. Even ended up going through the kernel source once (although that turned out to be faulty memory). Can't do that with Windows!

      Ho
      • Yes! That right now, in my mind at least, is the most viable alternative. Bringing that up would be a little tough though. OSX desktop and Linux servers would be a dream for me but that's a major, major change.
        • What's the point of migrating from Windows to OS X? They simply aren't different enough to justify the cost, given that economically they're identical. Unless you really believe that MS is "pure evil" and Apple are saints, there's no evidence that a dominant Apple would be better than a dominant Microsoft.
    • I think by and large they are talking about financial systems not back office stuff like domain controllers.
  • There goes all my plans of exploiting their MS-based "solutions" to engage in stock manipulation and diversion of corporate funds!

  • Startups? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by caluml ( 551744 )
    What is the best way to start up a company that sells Linux support, etc to companies? Any ideas?
  • Hah. I knew they used Linux on USS Enterprise. It was just too cool to be anything else.

    Oh wait. You mean that enterprise....
  • There was a nice talk about this at Debconf last week in Finland. About writing enterprise ready software [debian.net], it was one of the SkoleLinux developers (pere). And even though School != enterprise there are some valid point about how to make thing work for large organizations.

    Great talks.
  • Back when I worked for VA I remember going to Linux World in New York and just replaced their entire back trading network from VAX to a huge commodity cluster running Linux. That was back when VA still sold hardware and VA sold them the cluster. Linux isn't being installed on the desktops at these firms, but huge linux clusters to facilitate and speed trading.
  • I use Linux as my primary OS because I like it AND it makes good financial sense. If Linux were evenly priced with Windows I'd still choose it for certain applications. Especially anywhere the ability to modify the software for mission tasks was essential.

    It's not so much about money as control. That's really the thing I like best about Linux and OSS, I can control what my machine does down to a very granular level. I like that. Many people don't and that's fine. Use Windows or get a Mac.

    And a Li

    • It's sad that you are such an expert in linux, but can't figure out how to disable shit you don't need in windows. Let's start with the easiest, right click my computer: Properties.

      Advanced tab, Performance: Settings button.
      Click Adjust for best performance.

      If it's still slow perhaps you should try something faster than a p200 with 128mb of ram because anything much quicker than that has been more than fast enough in my experience.

      then again, the windows machines you use probably aren't really slow
      • It's sad that you are such an expert in MS Windows, but don't know anything about the rest of the IT multiverse. Let's start with the easiest, click on "control panel" in your Linux GUI.

        Disable the tremendous amount of eyecandy available for your system, as per your taste.

        If it's slower, even on your p200 with 128mb ram, disable a few unneeded kernel modules. If that's not enough, pop into kernel configuration, and alter the kernel as needed. This is a little more complicated, but pretty easy, especial
  • At this point the choices are RedHat Enterprise (RHEL) and SuSE (SLES). Both products are from fine companies, come with infrequent releases, semi-regular updates, and support just like the main line UNIX operating systems.

    Customers tend toward the bright side, many with UNIX experience and some with Linux too. Expectation can be that we would see something that is supported as "enterprise" yet patched with lightning speed as many products you find in Open Source. Expectation that any and all hardware i
  • After all, the armies of economists and financial gurus employed in the financial sector whose job it is to try to figure out how to more-cheaply run their companies can't be *totally* wrong... :-)
  • Linux is very close to becoming mainstream desktop OS. Linux is still lacking a bit in the help, install and education areas..... Linux still needs a better help system. No users consumer user wants to click on a menu item and end up at a command prompt with the man pages for help. Linux also needs a easier install. It would be most helpful if there was knoppix type of boot for the other distros. Linux also needs a better books that are more suited for learning and classroom curriculm. The Oreilly books
    • Linux also needs a easier install.
      ubuntulinux.org is damn easy to install... it's easier than XP. Occasionally there are hardware problems, such things as printers and winmodems, but mostly its just a case of booting from the install CD
  • when ppl espically reviewrs claim that businesses migrate to Linux to cut down costs.
    I do not belive this is true.
    I have seen lots of businesses where financing IT was not an issue of money (within reasonable limits ofcorse), and they just migrate to Linux for the speed, or the stability, and in some cases belive it or not, because some apps will run better on Linux than any other platform.

    Claiming that Linux is cheaper is a myth, it is NOT cheaper, where I work we spend millions of $'s on Linux clusters,
  • Working as an architect for one of the biggest banks of Switzerland I can say that we do not embrace Linux. Yes, every two years we are looking into the market and make a new positioning of Linux but so far we could not come up with a business case for the introduction of Linux.
    Technically, this is /. after all, we speak about replacing the Unix servers with Linux. The desktop was never even considered. All the software we developed inhouse is J2EE based so it would be easy to change.
    The main obstacle, be

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close