Linux Lands Big Bank Account

An anonymous reader writes "The European arm of Banco do Brasil, the largest bank in South America, is switching from Windows to Linux to cut costs and centralise support. The long-term strategy is to phase out Windows completely. Linux is also being used to replace Windows on desktops. Vnunet has the whole story."

I'm shorting MS stock.

[samuel4242]

The price differential is too huge. Most people don't use any of the features of Windows. Really, it's a great OS. I love using it. But if I was a MIS dude at a bank, I would toss it out the window (pun!) because of the cost. Most of the folks at the bank need some email and some access to accounts.

It just makes sense to create an Intranet for all of the internal form filling out work and account access and then use CGIs to do the computing. Let the servers do the work and let the client boxes format it for the screen with Mozilla.

Need for diverse windows versions.

[Flamesplash]

I agree. I really think MS needs to offer radically different versions of Windows. I don't need/want the majority of stuff windows comes with. I'd really like a stripped down windows and just add things as I want. Where my grandmother may want all the flashy stuff to be there.

It would be really need to see some stats on the frequency apps that come preinstalled are actually used. I'm talking about every single .exe not just the stuff in the Add/Remove Control Panel.

MSs Place in the Market

[Flamesplash]

I really wish I could remember where I read this, but I read somewhere that one of MSs problems is that they are trying to expand into a market that they really aren't suited for.

They went on to place solaris, linux, and windows into their appropriate market locations

MSs was vastly on the desktop, while holding a modest position in the small server market.

Linux took up the rest of the small server market and had a small chunk of the Large end server market.

Solaris/mainframe systems had the rest of the large end servers.

To the author MS was trying to take hold of more of the small end server market that it could an also trying to wedge itself into the large end server market, all while maintaining the hold on desktop systems. Linux was also trying to take too large a hold of the desktop market instead of just staying with small end servers and the random techno geek.

I really agree with the authors assesment, really wish I could remember who it was. All I know is that he is rather promenent in the tech industry.

Re:MSs Place in the Market

[shaitand]

You see but linux is not a company, it's not "Trying" to go anywhere, it just gets adopted by those who feel it suits their needs. If anyone is "trying" to put it anywhere, it's technicians and we all know, the techs are always right ;)

Re:Need for diverse windows versions.

[Raiford]

There is a pretty good commercial OS out there that does give you the flexiblity to install or de-install what you want and don't want. It's called OS/2. Remember that one ?

Re:Need for diverse windows versions.

[Iguanaphobic]

Still runs almost the entire ATM network. (On the client side anyway) Quietly, quietly, OS/2 is still a force in the clued in enterprise. One of the fastest Java interpreters, network support from hell and speaks pretty much every data format/protocol known to man. But you don't hear much about it anymore. Except in places where BSOD is not an option of course.

Re:Need for diverse windows versions.

[shaitand]

Most linux distro's actually come with about 4 times as many various little games as windows. Granted, OSS still needs to figure out how to use more sensible names for these games and elsewhere. I remember the first time I saw the name gimp, I thought WTH is that... now I'm the type I opened it up and found out. Most aren't, change the name to GNU Image Editor, now I see GNU Image Editor, hey I know what that is, it's safe to open an Image Editor and play with my pictures. The same applies to pretty much all Gnu software.

Re:Need for diverse windows versions.

[Monkeyman334]

The problem with a generic name like "GNU Image Editor" is some other image editor can come along and people might think they're associated. A user might try some other generic "Image Editor" that sucks and assume that all other versions of generic "Image Editor", including "GNU Image Editor", sucks as well. No, what they don't need is generic names. What they need is *marketing*, so people know that Illustrator is vector editing, Quicken is money management software, and GIMP is an image editor. Killustrator tried to abuse the Illustrator name, so people knew it was for vector editing, without paying for it and got rightfully sued. The only problem is, unlike Quicken and Illustrator, projects like GIMP and Kontour have no money for marketing. I can't think of any open source project that has money to promote its name, except the generic "Linux" through IBM. And Linux isn't really a brand name. It'll be interesting to see how open source projects deal with that problem. Maybe they'll get sued by more big companies and get the story posted to Slashdot so people will remember them, that's the only way I remember Kontour.

Hardware costs or Support costs

[hillct]

This seems to be a long term play, since they're spenging huge amounts of money on extremely high end IBM hardware (server side), so logic dictates they;re in it for the long haul since the only way to realize the indicated cost recovery, is to retain this new platform choice for at least 10 years.This is great to see.

Also, several folks have mentioned their concerns regarding trusting open source software with their money. I presume custom banking software will be ported, from it's original platform, so open source vs. closed source is meaningless where the software is all custom developed anyway. Systems with specific definable requirements such as will be used here is significantly easier to secure than systems where hundreds various and sundry services are allowed to continue running. Microsoft won the antitrust suit so we can't expect to see a stripped down truly secure Microsoft OS any time toon. All in all, this seems like wise strategic move.

--CTH

Re:Hardware costs or Support costs

[MrResistor]

According to the article, all their custom apps are being ported to Java, so OS is irrelevant. They do make the assertion that Linux runs Java faster than Windows does, which is interesting since I hadn't heard anyone say that before (I'm not a Java guy, so I wouldn't know).

While I agree that the cost recovery will take time to be realized, I don't think it's going to take as long as you think.

First of all, we're talking about as many as 78,000 Windows licenses (probably closer to 50k) that are going to ultimately be replaced. While that probably doesn't pay for an iSeries, it's certainly not chump-change, and will definately help offset the innitial cost.

The real big deal, though, is in increased reliability, performance, and security, and centralizing their IT. Centralized IT support means fewer support people, since you have fewer machines at fewer locations that require "serious" support, and you can get away with having monkey-level techs at the rest of the sites.

Additionally, they're already using Samba for file and print servers, and NT security, which they say performs better than Windows does. Increased reliability and security also reduces IT costs.

And, of course, since they likely use mostly client/server apps, and Linux allows one to do that to a much higher degree than Windows ever will, that further allows them to reduce costs by reducing the hardware requirements for those (up to) 78,000 desktops which they are also converting.

Re:Hardware costs or Support costs

[Greyfox]

I haven't seen any performance numbers, but one of the things they teach you in CS is that the perception of speed can sometimes be more important than actual speed. One of the examples that I recall was that waiting to refresh the terminal until you've gotten all the text from the mainframe can seem faster than updating it and scrolling as the text comes in. It may actually be slower but the user will think it's faster because of how the data is presented.

What does this have to do with JVM performance on Linux? Well X handles frames radically different than Windows does. Since the application is not handling its window controls, you can minimize or close the application even if it's completely frozen. For this reason, X GUI apps have always seemed faster to me than Windows ones, because I retain control over the GUI even when one app is bogging the system down.

Microsoft oddly never seems to learn from these fundamental design flaws. They've tried to work around the problem rather than simply solving it (I see these theme a lot in the IT Industry these days; see my recent posts on security.) Likewise, storing system time in GMT and using timezone offsets is how God intended time to be kept on computers. To this day Microsoft seems to feel that it's OK for their OS to adjust the system clock for daylight savings time rather than just doing the sensible thing. It seems to me that since they're bent on world dominance, they should at least have their product evolve out of such silly problems. Ah, but I digress a bit...

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[Quixote]

I was in my bank [hsbc.com] recently, and saw only 1 application running on the screen, in fullscreen mode: tn3270. Thats it. Everything that they do is done via tn3270 to an IBM mainframe. Now you tell me: what is the point in paying $100 to M$ and $? to the maker of tn3270?

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look around to anywhere POS is done, even computer stores, it's all green screens.

After a decade of the desktop revolution, character based systems still rule where work really needs to get done.

THIS is what must really frighten Microsoft. No matter how much they denegrate Linux as being behind and primitive and maybe even believe this to be the case, they know, deep in their hearts, that it's way more than good enough for the vast majority of computer applications in use today.

This fact explains .NET better than anything. For Microsoft to thrive they must get everyone off their legacy applications. This, in the face of the failure of more than 5 years of Java to succeed in getting people off of their legacy systems.

Brazilian Banks Update

[zanderredux]

Here in Brazil, the largest private bank, Bradesco [bradesco.com.br] is said to run M$ servers for their web operation. I believe that. But the other day I went to their branch and I saw scores of PCs with LCD screens running windows. When I asked them about the status of my accounts, they also brought up a nice terminal emulator screen.

Another large bank, Real ABN-AMRO [real.com.br], does the same.

Banco do Brasil, being the largest Brazilian bank (it's state-owned, by the way), might use terminal emulators on top of Windows as well. I've never managed to see actual windows, as I am not an account holder, but their systems seems to be heavily mainframe-based.

One of the largest credit card companies in Brazil is also entirely mainframe-based.

Seems that the market found equilibrium by itself: keep Windows where it belongs to (desktops) and use IBM mainframes and Unix boxes where critical data and processes must be kept. Frankly, I dont see the point of using Microsoft outside employees desktops.

As you guys know, Linux has a long way to go to achieve user-friendliness and if this trend continues, we'll see corporations forced to pay M$ licenses to run their desktops and paying even more to other companies so M$ can interoperate properly with mainframe and Unix servers.

Maybe this is the rationale behind M$ actions: they create their proprietary ecossystem at the expense of freedom and/or efficiency and/or market choice.

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[fanatic]

Blame factor. Who do you blame if you choose a OSS solution? People like to make the provider responsible EVEN when it's their fault.

Which accomplishes exactly dick. I repeat my challenge: I defy anyone, anywhere, to show proof that a mass market software maker has ever paid up for problems caused a customer by bugs. Doesn't happen. This whole issue of 'accountability' is crapola - which is more or less what you go on to say, but I'm so tired of hearing this in any form.

So they like the fact that Windows is very easy to blame.

There's truth here, but wouldn't it be better to have software that works, doesn't crash, has fewer security holes, is more customizable and doesn't give the SPA a license to screw you?

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[isorox]

Nobody every got fired for choosing Microsoft.

Think about it, most people now have a number one priority of keeping their job. Yes you could risk the open source route, and save your company millions. All it takes is one little bug and *you* get the blame. "He's the one that chose linux". Windows can crash all it wants, people accept that as the way computers work. Although decent IS managers know that in a normal desktop, linux, kde and mozilla are much more stable then windows and IE, their bosses wont. Anything that goes wrong with windows, you say "It's microsft, they're crap, just reboot/reinstall". If it goes wrong with linux, expect a lot of questions.

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nobody every got fired for choosing Microsoft.

Not true.

At the company where I work, the previous sysadmin was fired because he wouldn't stop using ActiveX in the company website.

In California, a vice-president of a bank was apparently fired due to his decision to use Windows NT in the bank's ATMs. The Windows-based ATMs kept locking up with BSODs (there were pictures of a BSOD'd ATM on the Internet).

And everyone lost their jobs when the company that bought out my former employer went bankrupt. The buyer was trying to reduce costs in anticipation of an IPO, and, despite our warnings, they insisted on replacing our "expensive" Unix servers with Windows NT servers. As a result, our formally-loyal customers started leaving in droves. The problem was that our customers were stock brokers, who required 100% uptime, and the new NT servers couldn't match the near-perfect record of the Unix servers they replaced (similar to the experience that Microsoft had with Hotmail).

So don't tell me that nobody ever gets fired for choosing Microsoft. It happens every day.

And it's going to happen even more often as business leaders learn about the benefits of Linux. Employers are going to realize that when they hire an MCSE, they are hiring someone who has been trained to put Microsoft's interests ahead of what may be best for their own company.

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[sql*kitten]

The price differential is too huge. Most people don't use any of the features of Windows. Really, it's a great OS. I love using it. But if I was a MIS dude at a bank, I would toss it out the window (pun!) because of the cost. Most of the folks at the bank need some email and some access to accounts.

You're exactly right. For example, Barclays do everything with Motif applications running on dedicated X terminals on the desktop and RS/6000 workstations and servers behind it all. A Dell PC running Linux makes a great cheap X terminal, probably even cheaper than the purpose-built ones you buy from NCD [ncd.com]. Other banks use their PCs as vt100 or IBM 3270 terminals. Most employees don't even need Office-type software like Word or Excel, they just need to run the one application that the bank wrote itself, or at least massively customized, to do their jobs.

It just makes sense to create an Intranet for all of the internal form filling out work and account access and then use CGIs to do the computing. Let the servers do the work and let the client boxes format it for the screen with Mozilla.

HTML forms are strange, when you think about it. They don't give the sort of rich GUI you can get with Windows/Motif (no combo box, no grid control, no spinner, etc), yet they require a lot of processing power and installed software on the desktop compared to a terminal application. I wonder why HTML forms are still so primitive, they've been around for years now and no-one's bothered to add more exotic widgets, meaning you have to go to Java (which is even more resource intensive than running X) if you want the sort of GUI capability a desktop developer is used to. They would be much better off just using the Linux boxes as old-fashioned terminals and not bothering with trying to shoehorn their apps into a web site.

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[Trane Francks]

Uhm, not quite. There's the small matter of 70,000 NT Workstation licenses...? ;)

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Actually all of South America is, mostly being pulled down from Argentina, which is one of Brasil's big trade partners. Brasil is actually not doing too bad, relatively. One part of their problems is they elected Lula, definitely a leftist. Early in his career as a trade union leader he talked about defaulting on the international debt, made a lot of folks nervous. As a politician, he's not so radical, he's a pretty smart guy and his newer views reflect that. Bush hates the fact that he got elected, unfortunately the US has a bad history about interfering in south American elections, and specifically in Brasil (ever see 8 Days in September?).

Anyways, saving money is always good, financial crisis or no. By going to Linux they:

• Save money on software licences.
  
• Get away from the MS upgrade cycle of forced upgrades.
  
• Have control over their documents and formats.
  
• Not have their computing infrastructure controlled by a foreign company, especially one that seems to be in bed with the American government.
  

Sure there will be problems along the way, but their analysis must have shown that on balance, this was the better way to go. This is a bank, they must have analyzed this pretty carefully.

Inter Bank communications!

[zenst]

It will be interesting too see how bank to bank communicatuions pan out. Wether they fall victuim to the dreaded offcie format as alot of compnies have or have used to block such a move themselfs.

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[Lobsang]

I believe the dreaded office format is what keeps the dependency on windows strong. Most people didn't realize yet that they can communicate perfectly using text in their emails. If that fails, they can always save their files in Rich Text format.

Unfortunately, MS Office is like a virus: You might do the right thing(tm) but chances are your neighbor won't...

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[fanatic]

Unfortunately, MS Office is like a virus: You might do the right thing(tm) but chances are your neighbor won't...

Simple solution:

Dear Sir or Madam:

You have sent a file to me in a format I can't read. Since the extension is (xls|doc|whatever), I assume this is a Microsoft office file. You can save this file in a format that is more useable to me and others by opening the file, using the File->SaveAs menus and selecting (text|RichTextFormat|HTML|whatever) and saving. Please send me the file that results.

While I regret any incovenience this may cause, it is necessary for our ongoing technology upgrade, part of which is to lessen our dependence on proprietery file formats which change at the whim of a single company, and require the use of expensive, insecure software.

Thank you very much.

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[saskboy]

While I agree that it would be nice if the onus of file format changing were on the sender, most people who send file attachments are too concieted to save into a "lossy" compatible document format, because [AHEM] Word is too darn crappy to make compatible files with anything else, by default. Heck it isn't even compatible with itself! Just try opening a one line Word 2000 doc file in Word 95, and it will tell the user that the file is CORRUPTED! Heck how hard would it have been to inform the user that they need to dish out another several hundred dollars to view the document, or send an email with instructions to the [AHEM] idiot who sent a proprietary format?

Sorry for the rant, I am all for switching office packages, and I see moderate usability in ABIword, and Open Office, but they don't have some of the features I use. If you can find me a Print Preview feature in ABIword, then I'll kiss you [pending gender check]. I've had decent success importing my standard documents [no pictures] into both Open Office, and ABIword.

As soon as I get the Microsoft monkey off my back, I'll start training my friends and family how to use OS word processors. If OS does a good enough job, the training curve will be short and sweet.

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[Kashif Shaikh]

Dear Mr Employee #115932,

You have been fired as under the Company Act Section #3.4 "Don't tell your boss what to do".

Sincerely,

Your Boss.

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[Zemran]

I do not see any problem with the dreaded office format. If I click on an office document (i.e. *.doc) it opens automatically in OpenOffice.

I also do not see that as a problem for banks that tend to be stuck with the older formats and still use a lot of plain ASCII.

Hidden benefits of linux migration

[Ars-Fartsica]

Actually get users to do their jobs. The narrow selection of apps for linux desktops could in fact be a productivity boon. Think about it - you know what your users -aren't- doing if they have a linux desktop. You know they aren't playing games or watching movies or whatever. Even though all of this is possible, 99% of users won't be able to figure out how to make it happen.

I actually think that in a business setting this is beneficial. I am often amazed at how many business environments use Windows simply to make users feel at home with their time-wasting apps at work, which they invariably set about to downloading ten minutes after they get a new PC.

Re:Hidden benefits of linux migration

[tcc]

> Even though all of this is possible, 99% of users won't be able to figure out how to make it happen.

Not to sound like a troll, but isn't that going against all the articles claiming that Linux has become so easy to install and ready for end-user desktop deployment? If so, +5? this is confusing ;)

Re:Hidden benefits of linux migration

[Trane Francks]

Not to sound like a troll, but isn't that going against all the articles claiming that Linux has become so easy to install and ready for end-user desktop deployment?

I don't think so. Linux can succeed in a banking environment for the very same reasons that OS/2 has succeeded there: it's stable, will run the vertical applications reliably day after day, and is not conducive to tinkering when security has been setup correctly on the workstation. Moreover, the user can't drop by download.com and pick up the latest Hello Kitty screensaver, which is the sort of nonsense I see at my office all the time.

As for the users not knowing how to install the stuff, your comment assumes that knowing how to log into a system and use a vertical banking application is the same as knowing how to untar, compile and install an application into their home directory to run it. End-user desktop deployment within a corporation entails that the user log in and use pre-installed applications. Linux is prime time for that, IMO.

Re:Hidden benefits of linux migration

[joshuac]

---snip
Linux can succeed in a banking environment for the very same reasons that OS/2 has succeeded there: it's stable, will run the vertical applications reliably day after day, and is not conducive to tinkering when security has been setup correctly on the workstation. Moreover, the user can't drop by download.com and pick up the latest Hello Kitty screensaver, which is the sort of nonsense I see at my office all the time.
---snip

Windows is not conducive to tinkering when security has been setup correctly, either. The problem with windows is with the types of "administrators" it attracts/caters to, not the OS.

Re:Hidden benefits of linux migration

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is not conducive to tinkering when security has been setup correctly, either. The problem with windows is with the types of "administrators" it attracts/caters to, not the OS.

Hear, hear. That's exactly what I dread most about my employees using Windows. It's not the price, since my company does have the money to furnish everyone with a brand new XP box (granted, with 70k workstations, I can see how licences could become a problem). It's not the instability, either; we run CVS on Unix, just along with the databases holding all the important data. Hell, it's even the insecurity: we've got several nice Linux routers everywhere firewalling and filtering as needed.

No, the thing that makes me cringe is the kind of "technical" people Windows attracts --and produces, after prolonged exposure. Man, I know people that used to be programmers, and good ones at that, but now the best they can do to design and implement a system is fire up powerpoint and paste little computer drawings with arrows pointing at each other.

And those are the good ones. I had to work in the past with "Microsoft certified engineers," meaning VB kids just out of college, on a couple of software development projects. Banking stuff, mainly. I still can't recover from seeing how incredibly lousy they were. Not a single thought about security, or performance, not a bit of concern about good, clean design, standards compliance or (ha!) portability... But hey, they were cheap. For the price of one Unix programmer that cares about those things, you can hire two of those barbarians and be done with it. I guess Windows is so good that it's not worth to bother about that. And management was proud of the result, because it has a lot of colorful thingies and blinkg gizmos that made cute noises when you paid your phone bill (how I wish that we're not God's truth).

I've seen 8-processor NT servers, with 1GB of RAM, that couldn't handle 200 concurrent sessions on a freaking web application --backed by mainframes doing all the hard calculations and stuff. I've seen budgets that took that number as a reference to buy equipment. 70K USD each. 80 boxes total. And everyone nodded and was happy, an apparently the only one with a problem with that was I.

Oh well. I guess I'm getting old. I'm just venting here. Never mind. I hope, I really do, that those Brazilian guys succeed, not so much in implementing their plan, which I'm pretty sure they'll do, but in helping to convince other banks that Linux is not that bad as a platform. Because I'll probably be working in one of those banks, and I really fear that one day the "Windows way" will infect me and I'll become one of those monkeys.

My apologies for venting.

In other words

[Bouncings]

You think that Linux will be more productive for these employees now that Loki is out of business?

Got it. I agree. Sadly.

Re:Hidden benefits of linux migration

[iabervon]

Unfortunately for that theory, it's actually really easy to get and install xpat2, which is better than regular windows solitaire and freecell combined. Plus, the users will immediately get hooked on slashdot, and then LWN, and then the linux-kernel archives, and then...

On the other hand, more linux entertainment things don't have timed input, so people can get back to work whenever something important happens. I think most people work more productively when they relax whenever they don't have anything significant they have to do, but get back to work when something's important.

Re:Hidden benefits of linux migration

[Tyler Eaves]

Simple, don't give them root...

Sounds a bit unlikely

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Banks have a reputation for being extremely conservative and set in their ways when it somes to changing software, and I'm surprised that a bank would make such a wholesale switch like this, especially to a platform no other bank has really used before. Still, good luck to them, it will be interesting to see who successfull the project will be. Not wanting to start another debate on Linux on the desktop, I won't mention that the plan to throw away all the Windows desktops and replace them with Linux sounds a little over ambitious, not least because of the cost of retraining staff. Mark

Re:Sounds a bit unlikely

[Trane Francks]

Retraining? We're talking a vertical application here. User logs in with username and password (on a post-it note affixed to the monitor, no doubt). KDE automatically fires up KMail and the Java app that they'll use for the next 8 hours. Done business for a lot of folks.

Bogus, particularly with high unemployment

[Ars-Fartsica]

Simple economics - employees are far more amenable to changes in their work environment when unemplyment is high. This is exactly the time to make such a change.

Three letters, I B M

[hughk]

Other banks have Linux. It sort of crept in via the netadmins (Firewalls, etc.) sysadmins (internal web servers) but has kept before out of the limelight. In any case, Linux is, after all, Unix.

IBM is probably one of the few companies who are well enough equipped to deal with Microsoft FUD, probably because they were heavily into the FUD business themselves. IBM is also a major consulting company, and for such a move, they are well equiped to help.

I would guess that in reality, they would phase in Linux. Probbaly replacing certain internal servers and desktops running more specialised apps, after that it is just a metter of time.

Does it really take so long to retrain someone from MS Office to OpenOffice?

Re:Sounds a bit unlikely

[WanderingGhost]

Banks have a reputation for being extremely conservative and set in their ways when it somes to changing software,

Indeed. But I knew those billions IBM invested in Linux would make a difference someday. :-)

and I'm surprised that a bank would make such a wholesale switch like this, especially to a platform no other bank has really used before. Still, good luck to them, it will be interesting to see who successfull the project will be.

That bank is controlled by the Brazilian government. It's a very important bank in Brazil, so I believe they have a big probability of success.

IIRC, they are running Linux on one (or more?) IBM mainframe (now, that explains it!). Their portal [bb.com.br] has been rewritten in JSP.

BTW, some other Brazilian banks are starting to be more Linux-friendly (although not using Linux themselves). Banco Itau' [itau.com.br], for example, now has a front page in their netbanking site with an "indexLinux.htm", to which you are redirected if you are using Linux. And yes, it works perfectly with any Mozilla-based browser! (No Java VM needed)

What else banks are

[Bouncings]

Banks are conservative, yes. But banks are also, well, greedy. Very greedy. They aren't betting on Linux, they're betting on IBM, and if IBM promises them big savings, and IBM-quality enterprise support, the greediness of the bank takes hold.

Not at all!

[adilsonoliveira]

Here in Brazil, there are several brazilian and multi-national banks going to linux all they way. The Banestado (a state bank) changed all the ATMs from DOS to Linux. HSBC is using it on several layers of the organization. There's more comming but AFIAK it's not public information yet. Besides, I'm quite convinced there's a few others who already switched but don't tell anyone as a way to keep their internal process secret or just because they think some clients might feel unconfortable to have their accounts managed by a "hacker's OS". Well, whatever ;) Adilson.

Re:Sounds a bit unlikely

[GuidoJ]

Being conservative many banks never even considered switching to Windows in the first place. Most of them still run Unix or VMS for server systems. Most code is still written in Cobol. Almost any interface for financial applications is ASCII. They only use Windows on desktops in the front-office anyway. IMO the costs of migrating to Linux is especially low within banks and other financial businesses.

The real question is of course: what are their interest rates?

And why not desktops?

[dacarr]

Kudos to this bank for going at Linux. But enough of that.

As for desktops, it's about time we see this in a corporate setting on the desktop. All the functionality is there, and what the several word processors available can't do (what, 3 or four things that word can?), WordPerfect can do just fine. Slightly different feel, but it works.

Of course, I'm waiting for the day that hell freezes over so you can find Microsoft Office for Linux....

Re:And why not desktops?

[IamTheRealMike]

As for desktops, it's about time we see this in a corporate setting on the desktop. All the functionality is there.........

Actually, not quite. If you look at Psyche, it's clearly being aimed at the corporate desktop, but the remote admin tools haven't been developed yet. There's kickstart and that's about it.

I'd bet almost anything that with the next few versions of Redhat, they start introducing stronger corporate desktop management software.

Re:At least use facts

[SoftwareJanitor]

the feature count of MS Word

Since when does feature count matter? How many people use more than 10% of the features of their word processor? And what does MS Word have that OpenOffice Writer doesn't that anyone actually needs? I've used both, and I can't say I find anything lacking with OpenOffice. Really, what is missing in OpenOffice, let the OpenOffice developers know, and it probably won't be missing for very long. I never seem to get any kind of real answer on this question. I am pretty much convinced that the people who say that MS Word has a lot of functionality that other products don't haven't really ever used anything else.

Cool!

[Trane Francks]

The bank will consolidate 41 Windows NT servers in eight European branches down to three IBM iSeries servers in London with six remote IBM xSeries Intel servers.

The server boys are rejoicing at the fact they'll no longer have to fight so hard to keep the server rooms temperate. My last gig in an overcrowded server room was nasty. Bloody hot near the boxes and bloody cold where the cooling system was blasting air. Ugh.

And they're doing Linux on the desktop, too! Break out the champagne. Somebody actually bothered to see that Linux does Java quickly!

Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[Flamesplash]

The bank will consolidate 41 Windows NT servers in eight European branches down to three IBM iSeries servers in London with six remote IBM xSeries Intel servers.

To me this sounds like they simply needed to revamp their whole setup to start with, be it with 3 windows/Mac/*nix servers.

"We had about 70,000 Windows server and desktop licences and eight NT networks serving Europe," said Tim Evans, UK IT manager at Banco do Brasil.

Again this sounds like saving from a reorg not an OS switch. They don't mention why they didn't choose windows when they reduced their server farm. It's a misleading statement that makes you think _only_ *nix allowed them to reduce their server numbers.

I really wish when stories like this were written they made things clear. It really don't help *nix much with shallow claims like this article makes. I'm all for people using the best thing that works for them, but I like consitant reasons and effects.

Additionally, I also wonder if these articles take into account the admin costs. Ignoring the misleading numbers the article gives. Is it easier to admin 3 Windows servers or 3 *nix servers? In my experience windows seems to be more hands off than *nix, or Solaris in particular. Maybe I'm comparing Apple's and Oranges though given my experience.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[hagbard5235]

Additionally, I also wonder if these articles take into account the admin costs. Ignoring the misleading numbers the article gives. Is it easier to admin 3 Windows servers or 3 *nix servers? In my experience windows seems to be more hands off than *nix, or Solaris in particular. Maybe I'm comparing Apple's and Oranges though given my experience.

Hmm. Admining three Windows servers vs three *nix servers is an interesting comparison. I know that in all the places I've ever worked ( where the scale was much larger than 3 servers ) it was incredible how much more manpower it took to look after Windows than *nux. I've been in a couple of places where you had one dude looking after a half a dozen *nix servers and several hundered *nix workstations and a group of 12 people looking after a similar number of Windows workstations and their supporting servers.

But at the three server level I'm not so sure. My guess would be it would be more work to set up the *nix servers, but less work to keep them running.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[platypus]

I'm admining 5 linux servers and one nt server. The nt server is definately more work to keep it running.

About installation, as soon as you have to install a serious server application, linux wins hands down in many cases. This is because installing something like sql-server+iis on microsoft needs a lot of patching and disabling stuff. Go to MS's website and search for installation procedures for something like siteserver, there are a lot of steps involved.
This get's worse if the os ages more and more, but you want to install a newer application, because you first have to update the os with a lot of stuff before the application is even able to run.
Contrast that to the typical linux distribution, which, while additionally being a lot cheaper, enables you to install a updated OS together with a matching version of the app, both configured&compiled to work together.
I'm quite sure I'd install a production ready system with a sql server and a webserver with SuSE (or Redhat etc.) in less than half the time than a competent windows admin a system with the same functionality (more or less) an windows based system.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[bmacy]

Windows is hands-off? I have several years experience at an MSP and I can tell you that your experience with Windows being more hands off is very irregular. We had customers that all we did for them was reboot nodes in their Windows Server farms a dozen times a day when certain monitors failed.

Anyways, almost without exception it was Windows servers that would be the boxes with perpetual problems.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[Ensign Nemo]

No, it think it's based on merit.
It's not misleading, it's generally known that a *NIX box can handle more than a Windows box.
He did mention why they didn't choose Windows for their reduced server farm: ""This gave us a lot of problems. So our objective was to centralise IT support to become more cost-effective and flexible," he added." and "...Evans said Samba also performed better than Windows."
Sounds to me like they came to the conclusion that it was more centralised, cost effective, flexible and better performing to go with Linux than Windows.

As for admins, it is true that *NIX admins are a little more expensive but you typically need fewer of them.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[Trane Francks]

To me this sounds like they simply needed to revamp their whole setup to start with, be it with 3 windows/Mac/*nix servers.

First off, I'll admit that it's been a while since I administered NT Servers, but Microsoft server applications such as Exchange Server very often demand that it have full run of the joint. At my current place of employment -- less than 60 employees -- we have no less than 4 servers to handle Exchange Server, the BDC, the file server and an Oracle server. Then there are the firewalls, etc... It takes very, very little time for a Microsoft shop to be overrun with servers, I assure you.

Absolutely Based On Merit

[FreeUser]

To me this sounds like they simply needed to revamp their whole setup to start with, be it with 3 windows/Mac/*nix servers.

That sounds all very even handed, but no one switches there entire infrastructure from one platform to another simply to "reorganize." If a company goes through the expense and time to switch platforms, they are doing so because of a measurable advantage (and enlightened staff savvy enough to recognize and take those advantages), namely in this case:

• Lower licensing cost
  
• Lower TCO (less manhours for same productivity)
  
• Added simplicity in management and deployment
  
• Freedom from having one's vendor yank one's chain (this is probably the most important aspect, and advantage of free software over proprietary equivelents)
  

Again this sounds like saving from a reorg not an OS switch. They don't mention why they didn't choose windows when they reduced their server farm. It's a misleading statement that makes you think _only_ *nix allowed them to reduce their server numbers.

It isn't misleading at all, and while it may be as easy to manage 3 Windows servers as it is 3 Unix servers, it is vastly more easy to manage 300 Unix servers than it is 300 Windows servers, and infinitely easier to manage 3,000 Unix workstations than it is 3,000 Windows workstations. The difference in manhours required, the advantages of scripting and automation over Windows GUI admin designs, etc. are well and thoroughly documented (and painfully obvious to anyone required to manage both).

They chose to move to GNU/Linux for several reasons, among those cited are cost and easier management (unequivocably true, regardless of the disinformation eminating from Redmond). No company does this lightly, and the move was almost certainly decided based entirely on the merits (punctuated by the fact that such a decision likely ran counter to political corporate mindset, which means the merits not only had to be present, they had to be exceptionally compelling).

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[zulux]

If you have One NT server and One *nix Server, and you're stupid, the NT server *is* easier to administrate. Just noodle around with the mouse and find the settings.

If you have more than one server, *nix is always faster to adminitrate.

Examples:

I can fully administrate any of my FreeBSD/OpenBSD servers from anywhere in the workd using my Iridium Phone and a Psion Revo with an SSH client. Windows 'remote-desktop' won't work at all over the Iridium phone's 2400 baud connection. There goes my hike and I scurry back to civilisation.

I can compile a versions of Samba for any arcatecture on one box, and deploy the new version remotely, without user intervention. Try getting your NT on Aplha box to deply a change to Windows-2000 box on AMD, without user intervention.

Try pulging in a laptop into your COM1 port and see what you get on Windows - on my Unix boxes you get a shell that you can log into, and fully administer your computer. If you lucky - and did major hacking, you might be able to get a cmd.exe over COM1 - but cmd.exe is useless.

Can you get your Widnows servers to bood diskless over a network? Nope.

The fact is Unix has had 25 years to get it right on some of the most advanced hardware in the world. Windows 7 year old a cludgy GUI layer on a bad VMS clone on PC hardware. No wonder is sucks.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[zulux]

There's a fully capable SSH server for Windows, and you can do one hell of a lot from CMD.EXE... Perhaps you should read the manual for NETSH etc.?



I'm sure you can clidge an NT enviroment to work like Unix, but then I'd just rather run Unix. You can cludge a Honda Civic into going fast - I'd just rather have the Corvette.

Why the HELL would you want a server to boot diskless? If you're talking about clients, what do you THINK PXE boot roms are for?



A cluster of computational boxes. Render farm.

Hah. More like Unix has had 25 years to get it right on proprietry hardware. It's easy if you control hardware as well as software. Just look at how great Solaris is on x86... NOT.

Solaris on X86 is better then Windows NT on Sparc.

Oh wait....

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[Malcontent]

Why is this guy rated up so high?

Doesn't he know that exchange, SQL server etc need their own servers? Hasn't he read the MS best best practices which state that explicitly?

Not only that but he then claims that windows servers are more hands off then unix servers? WTF.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[bmetzler]

To me this sounds like they simply needed to revamp their whole setup to start with, be it with 3 windows/Mac/*nix servers.

My experience is that *nix has always been more capable in running more then one service on a box. Plus, note that these are iSeries servers. Not something that Microsoft works with.

It's a misleading statement that makes you think _only_ *nix allowed them to reduce their server numbers.

Perhaps only *nix did let them reduce their server numbers. I've never seen any hard evidence that NT lets you reduce server numbers. All the *nix->NT conversions I've experienced always resulted in more servers, not less. And that was expected.

In my experience windows seems to be more hands off than *nix, or Solaris in particular.

Actually, *nix has much better administrative capabilities then NT does. Especially remote administrative capabilities, which would seem to be a factor here.

Maybe I'm comparing Apple's and Oranges though given my experience.

Probably

-Brent

Scaling Unix vs. Windows

[Bouncings]

When you scale Unix/Linux, you generally will get bigger servers. Because uptime is good, the operating system can handle lots of CPUs, and the system almost never needs a reboot, one big server makes sense. That's why they are "reorganizing" to have fewer servers.

With Windows, you have a shorter uptime strategy (code for lousy uptime), configuration reboots, and the OS doesn't have the overhead for handling larger computers. The logical thing to do is to buy lots and lots of servers, and share the load between them.

The "reorg" is mandated by the way the operating systems scale.

ING Bank

[loucura!]

I have a friend who works for ING Bank, and apparently they are putting together a group to test the feasibility of Linux for their day-to-day. He's complaining because they chose people he considers inferiour, and is trying to get in the project...

Kinda amusing, considering he's a card-holding MSCE.

_Java_ Lands Big Bank Account

[merriam]

The core Windows-based banking application has been rewritten in Java to make it available on any system

...

"Linux runs Java much quicker than Windows. It's the natural operating system to run Java," said Evans, who added that other applications are now gradually being ported to Linux.

It's not clear whether anything is really being ported to Linux right now. But it's good to see they're using Samba.

Wait a minute...

[dh003i]

Wait a minute, I thought there were no apps in Linux to deal with the needs of big-time financial entities like banks? Or at least that's what the MS-mongors here on Slashdot keep on trying to tell us.

Go figure, that's bullshit. Big-time banks wouldn't be switching to Linux if there were no Linux apps to support their financial software needs.

Re:Wait a minute...

[WildBeast]

As long as it's free, it'll do.

Re:Wait a minute...

[GigsVT]

Do you think big banks just go buy off the shelf stuff?

I'd wager most are running custom stuff on SAP or Oracle or some other heavyweight. Those all run on Linux.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Trane Francks]

Big-time banks wouldn't be switching to Linux if there were no Linux apps to support their financial software needs.

This particular big-time bank opted to port some apps to Java. Others are in the process of being ported to Linux-native binaries. Banks actually hire programmers and analysts to design and create their own software. Amazing, I know.

Re:Wait a minute...

[AndroidCat]

They're probably just starting to shift from OS/2. Banks are very conservative about platforms, and if they think that Linux is stable enough, that's a good thing.

As for software, they will write whatever software they want you to use.

But, what about the banking software?

[dagg]

I suspect that these banks use computers for more than just e-mail and browsing the web. The big question is: what OS is their internal banking software written for? Is it already for windows? Will they have to rewrite it? I guess if they are moving to Java... then they should be OK. But I am skeptical.

--

What your bank already knows... [tilegarden.com]

Hold on there

[Bouncings]

Reading the article, a quote jumped out at me:

In the future, he said, the bank hoped staff would converge to a single skill-set.

Ok, I generally like the sound of companies jumping ship to Linux, but we've heard the "converge to a single skill-set" dozens of times in the past few decades, and seldom with favorable results.

If I may bitch. You don't want a single skillset. You've got a C++/Linux project? Good! Hire half C++/Linux developers, half a mixture TCL/Linux, Perl/BSD, Visual Basic/Windows. You don't want a single skillset. Why? Generally the VB/Windows head will think a certain way. If you actually achieve your fantasy of a single skillset, you've lost the diversity of thought that comes with a staff from multiple backgrounds. People with different skills think of things different ways and can contribute great ideas.

Now if he said, converge on a single goal -- that would be far more encourage and far less pointie haired.

Sorry to harsh the buzz.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I wonder...

[melonman]

When Linux has enough desktop users to make this statistically likely. At present, even if people were switching in either direction by tossing a coin, you would expect about 99 defections towards Linux for each defection towards Windows, simply because there are so few Linux users (in this niche) to defect.

Re:I wonder...

[IamTheRealMike]

They already publish such stories [microsoft.com].

I seriously doubt it is faked. There is always movement between platforms, but for now it appears the movement is in our direction

Re:I wonder...

[kesuki]

That link leaves on question begging to be asked:
If a hard rock cafe server has a critical stop, can anyone hear it?
Oh and hey, Guess what, they only used linux for apache, but you could have read that at the link you posted, the reason they saved money is because they ditched a complex and unwieldy solaris/netware/etc system.
Keep in mind too that an overpriced fast-food bar/grill with loud music and lines for seating doesn't exactly require a whole fleet of computers to operate. It takes a lot of min-wage grunts, serving tables etc.
Downtime doesn't exactly cause hard rock to loose money, especially if they can get the system back up relatively quicky. because there is this funny thing called a 'pen and paper' and a 'calculator' and with those basic tools, they can take orders, and determine how much to charge, and even calculate tip and taxes.
On the other hand a bank could loose it's shirt if transactions got lost or delayed due to a system crash -- and every minute of downtime costs their organization money.
yeah, if you want a system that minumum wage grunts can admin, and a few crashes won't kill you windows is ideal. And that's what it looks like the hard rock cafe wanted.

Re:Obviously it's not faked

[IamTheRealMike]

LOL! That's hilarious. What a hoot. Microsoft really shoot themselves in the foot sometimes don't they?

So let's see, we go to the MD of an old-skool UNIX place and say "we want to use Linux", the MD says "So tell me, who's switching to Linux and who's switching to Windows?".

We say, "Banco de Brazil is using it, that's 70,000 employees and millions of customers", Microsoft say "Hard Rock Cafe dumped Linux in favour of Windows", and we say ".... and now they have an average uptime of 4 DAYS".

Zing! We win that round I think..... 4 days is pathetic even for Windows. Max uptime of a month? What on earth are they doing??

web apps

[Anonymous Coward]

I went the other day to my bank to ask for some stuff, and all the information that I requested was queried/retrived/printed via a some sort of web browser. The bank has some sort of terminals where you sit with a member of the staff and you can see them typing and using the computer. The browser, rather than have the "explorer" logo or mozilla or whatever, it had the logo of the bank....the computer run win NT. I remember as well going to the bank to get some money out from the cash point. That day they have changed the ATM's interfaces from the old text based ones to fancy graphical ones.
Out of 6 ATM's 3 had the nice "graphics" running, 2 had "please press ctrl+alt+delete to log it" and the last one had a "green" screen of death, as the the screen was totally brigh green due to color of the screen. It was the last day I saw fancy "graphics" on the ATM's, I wonder why...

Has ANYONE Notice?????

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it was 2 years ago pundits were saying 'Linux will NEVER be on the desktop! No good apps, games, office suite, etc! During that time I have seen more and more stories where companies world wide [yeah INCLUDING the U.S. too]that are deploying it their businesses.

4-6 yrs ago, many of those same pundits were saying that Linux would NEVER be in Enterprise server farms [or lack thereof].

Well they were wrong about the servers and they will be wrong about the Desktop. Even though it may not overtake the desktop [and I don't think even that is a forgone conclusion], it will seriously dent into Apple AND Microsoft's dominance on the desktop.

When businesses start realizing the mistake they made on MS's arrogant 'subscription' biz model and when MS realizes too late what an arrogant goof they made, then the floodgates will open.

Wait and see if I am wrong, pundits.

Yay! yay!

[rice_burners_suck]

Yay! Yay! Yay! Microsoft sucks! Yay! Yay! Yay! Linux wins another one! Yay! Yay!

Microsoft: Nanny nanny boo boo! Bill: Nanny nanny boo boo! Bwaaaaahaaaahaaaahaaahahahaahahahahahahahaha!

Ser iously now. DOS-based systems have historically been convenient for embedded and other systems that don't have the power to provide complex services. I say DOS-based because there are many different DOS lookalikes that serve the same purposes. Unfortunately, the design of Windows has built too strongly upon assumptions made in DOS, and even though it is no longer running on DOS in newer versions, certain problems do exist due to the system's background. On the other hand, the design of UNIX has always been a better architecture than the DOS-based operating systems for complex, flexible systems that provide reliable services. Although it has many shortcomings, these are being addressed today so the architecture is changing to support the today's needs. Linux gives business the ability to use an architecture close enough to UNIX that it can be considered the same for discussion purposes. It has the support of programmers and heavyweight companies worldwide. It can be customized by anyone for any purpose. Corporations and governments can be sure that no company will hold them or their data hostage. And there are no per-user licensing costs, regardless of Total Cost of Ownership arguments. I strongly believe that these advantages will eventually displace Windows in such a serious manner that, although it will continue to exist, I think it will become one of many "front-end" systems on the market, and Microsoft will have a very difficult time differentiating it from other products so that they will have a competitive advantage with it. Even if assholes, I mean, Microsoft, tries to compete by releasing code or whatever, it'll never help them because nobody cares. And their code is probably a pile of ugly crap that somehow works only because a hundred zillion programmers are hacking it together so that it works somehow. Although they'll probably be around for a while, I have a feeling Microsoft won't be so powerful anymore, and FINALLY, computing won't be held hostage by them. So there... nanny nanny boo boo. I hope that in 10 years, Microsoft's entire distribution will account for 1% of the entire software market. And I hope they don't spread to other markets. Actually, what I really hope is that they'll go out of business through huge fsck-ups that will leave all Windows-based systems crippled, as they are tied into the existance of the company. That would be cool. Microsoft SUCKS! Linux RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! Free Software RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! Open Source RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! BSD RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! Talking shit on them RULES! Microsoft SUCKS!

Linux running Java faster

[i_luv_linux]

If this news is really true it is very good news, but I couldn't understand what the guy mean by "Linux runs Java much quicker than Windows". The speed of Java heavily depends on the compiler and runtime technology being used. As far as I know Microsoft Java was one of the fastest JVMs out there. ORP was comparing its own performance with MS's JVM and for many programs it was behind.

Re:Linux running Java faster

[AndersM]

Well, exactly. Microsoft's virtual machine was one of the fastest. But that was before the Java quarrel between Sun and Microsoft started. Things change.

I very much doubt Microsoft has poured resources into Java since they were forced to quit calling their VM a Java VM by the courts.

Since that time, there have been a many improvements in Java technology from both IBM, Sun and open source community. JIT compilation, for instance, which has a huge impact on performance, has been tremendously improved since Microsoft did any serious Java work.

Big corporations have different criteria...

[sapgau]

In a way this makes sense. A big corporation will not only (if at all) consider ease of use at the GUI level to determine the right OS to save costs and get the job done.

It is normal for a big corporation to have standards and procedures and if they have them to get things done in windows they can certainly have them to do stuff with linux. As long as it can be proven that Linux can do the same tasks with the same amount of effort (but different knowledge and mindset) then the last decision will be about cost.

To pay Microsfot for support or have it's own support staff becomes irrelevant. What is important is the independence from the policies of ONE vendor.

Right now these options STILL are not as clear to many CEOs or even CIOs. With time and with improvements similar to Xandros [xandros.com] will force Microsoft to change their ways (and as we have seen before, they will).

Not without precedent

[donglekey]

Canada Trust, one of the biggest banks in west Canada (I am not sure about their reach) use linux heavily. I went there to open an account, and while I was answering questions, what was on their desktop? KDE everywhere. People at desks and people working behind the counter were all using Linux and KDE on PCs. I would also suspect that if Linux is used on every desktop that it, or at very least some other Unix is used for all the servers.

Don't stop there.

[PyroX_Pro]

I see this everywhere I go, businesses running windows with one app maximized to the screen, running on a cheap pc. Food Places, Gas Stations, Department Stores, the list is endless. Each one spends $$$ to MS just to be able to run that 1 .exe that they use. Its my opinion that they ALL should be switching to open source solutions. Take Quick Trip for an example, lets say they have 1 million stores ( just an example )worldwide. 3 PC's per store, $100 per pc to MS so they can run that 1 app. Thats $300,000,000 to Microsoft. Good lord man. The only bad thing is, most if the time the OC makers force Microsoft onto the PC when its purchased. I forget if the are now forced to , or if they can offer OS-less systems? Anyway, take that example, times 1 million businesses worldwide like it. Thats a lot of money thrown our the WINDOWs (pun) .

Superman III Patch

[Taos]

To: Linus
Subject: Patch to move all rounding errors into a Cayman Islands bank account

superman-III.diff.gz follows....

"Big account"??

[NineNine]

Anyone want to explain to me how a whopping 9 boxes is considered a "big" account? I may be a bit confused, but last I checked, 9 is a relatively small number. True, not as small, as say negative 10 billion, but since the number of computers can either be be zero or greater, 9 is relatively small. I mean, the only way you could have fewer boxes is if you had 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, or 0 boxes. 9 machines. Whoa. Now, I am blown away. I'm thinking that /. should just start reporting every time someone installs any kind of OSS software at home. Headline, "Bob Smith of BE, NJ installed Redhat on 10 PC's at home today!" Now 10. That would be impressive. More so than 9. One more, actually.

Re:"Big account"??

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Anyone want to explain to me how a whopping 9 boxes is considered a "big" account?

They're still in the early stages, they're consolodating to 9 machines, 9 huge machines. One consolodation converts 41 servers dwn to 3, which I think is a bad sign for MS, since this is a big machine and administration savings. The fact that you can consolodate down to 9 machines is also significant.

From the article:

The long-term strategy is to

phase out Windows completely. Linux is also being used to replace Windows on desktops.

"We had about 70,000 Windows server and desktop licences and eight NT networks serving Europe,"

The eventual 70,000 seats is the big news. They're not doing it all at once, they're going to do the servers first, the issues are more known there. They're doing a staged rollout, which is what they should do.

retraining

[Botchka]

One thing that I haven't heard mentioned yet is the time/cost factor of retraining all of these individuals. Any idea how hard it is going to be to retrain a Windows user to use a Linux gui? How many times is tech support gonna hear..."where's the Start button?"...or "how do I do this in Koffice?" I'm all for a changing of the tide, but it's not going to be all fun and games. There is going to be some SERIOUS cost involved in retraining end users and hiring more helpdesk personnel. Porting the organization I work for over to Linux would initially give me some serious nightmares. I mean we have end users that can't even operate a f**king mouse so migrating them to Linux just sounds like a major headache.

Re:retraining

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Valid point, but there are migration costs with versions of Windows as well. I just got moved to XP and Office XP after being on NT 4.0 on my desktop, and NT 2K on my work laptop. I'm still looking for some things, trying to get the OS configured right. The menus in XP are different as well. I don't have the default XP desktop thankfully, they rolled out the NT2K backwards compatible style desktop, so it's not that much of a shock.

Re:retraining

[nagora]

Any idea how hard it is going to be to retrain a Windows user to use a Linux gui?

It generally takes me about 15 minutes. KDE is so fucking awful because it's designed to let Windows users transfer over quickly. I hate it myself but Windows users can and do use it without knowing that it's not Windows.

where's the Start button

It's in the bottom left where it is under Windows (KDE again).

how do I do this in Koffice?

The answer to that is "Do it in Star/Open Office instead. If you've used MS Office you'll figure it out easily".

I mean we have end users that can't even operate a f**king mouse so migrating them to Linux just sounds like a major headache.

A Linux command line sounds ideal for them!

Seriously, the fact is that for 80% of Windows users Windows is a big fat zero. Set the machine up to start Office and Outlook at boot and they'll never see the desktop. For more specialised users, particularly printers and architects, Linux is a long way off being ready. But how many Windows machines are bought for secitarial work compared to that sort of thing?

TWW

The bottom line.

[cyt0plas]

In systems such as those used by most modern banks, they are interested in one thing. Money. Since accounting doesn't fundamentally change very much, the most important things are:

1) Reliability. The system should be rock stable. Upgrades are not a concern very often (mainly for security), and should involve as little downtime as possible. In this case, time quite literally is money. Well, I had a slackware 3 box that ran 3 years. Few people will argue windows is more stable. In addition, the ease with *nix services can be replaced, upgraded, restarted, and restored is unparalleled in the Windows world.

2) Interoperability. Unlike most places where it is important to be able to support a broad range of different applications (a Windows strongpoint, due to the size of the Windows market), most bank applications are very specialized, in-house or contract work. As such, they simply get applications for their OS of choice. 3) Security. Unlike many places that want a working, secure system right out of the box, banks and other financial institutions are willing to invest the time (and money) into securing any box. As such, linux does not have as big a impact on the overall security here. However, it should be noted that it is _far_ easier to remove unnecessary and/or unusued services, and as such it is easier and less time-consuming to do, and more likely to be done in a secure manner, if the person securing the network is lazy (highly unlikely).

In a system such as this, Windows loses many of it's benefits such as a well-known GUI, and ease-of-use for the enduser. Because all operators _must_ be trained in the operation of the bank's systems, this is not such a big factor. Also, the convenience of Windows Update is also irrelevant, as the operators should not have the priveleges to install updates anyway.

Cost:
Because banks tend not to update their software unless absolutly necessary, the Linux cost advantage is not so great here; however, it should not be overlooked that Linux tends to be easier to remotly administer and repair, allowing for less use of expensive on-site service. Furthermore, the open-source nature of Linux allows banks to customize their OS to their Software, instead of the other way around.

Linux version of Notes

[twoslice]

A third iSeries server (a model 270) is used as a Lotus Domino server running mail for 250 staff throughout Europe. It also links into the bank's private intranet.

Apparently IBM has committed to a Linux version of the Notes client in the near future. Once that is a reality then Domino can be a full Linux app on both the server and the desktop. At the moment the Desktop Notes client will only run well under Windoze (or WINE with a lot of tweaking), while Domino has been running under Linux for awhile now.

All Your ..

[WillRobinson]

All your Peso's are belonging to US

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Anyone care to make a wager? Next issue of slashback, assuming the eds will swallow their pride to print it, will include a story about how the same bank is buying brand new Microsoft licenses at disgustingly discounted prices... "Leye nux" what now?

A great day for information retrieval

[willpost]

Finally a step towards debugging the machine that led to the imprisonment of Mr. Buttle, shoe repairman, instead of Harry Tuttle, illegal freelance Heating Engineer.

Re:In a related story

[ActiveSX]

Doctors clam the heart attack

Many researchers, however, are of the opinion that he was just eating too much sea food.

Just Remember that...

[Lobsang]

There's more people in your so called "third world" than in the "industrialized nations" or whatever you might want to call them... :)

Re:Free OS's lead to greater profit.

[WildBeast]

Get with the program dude. Corporations need developers like you if you're willing to give them your work for free. True, they won't offer you free service in return, but think about the personal satisfaction you'll get by helping big corporations not pay for software :)

Re:Bill gates in Brazil

[Lobsang]

Oh, he normally sends his ever vigilant watchdog: Ballmer.

A friend of mine works in the public sector in Brazil (an office related to the Ministry of Health). His Boss asked him about some ideas on how Linux could be used to cut costs to the taxpayer.

After careful study, he produced a report proving that is was possible to replace most (if not all) MS servers with Linux servers.

When word got out about this possibility, Steve Ballmer paid the country a visit and mysteriously, the project was put on the shelf in favor of Microsoft... Of course, the licensing method chosen was very unfavorable to the taxpayer.

We all know what happens here...

Re:Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes.

Next year we are going to have a new, leftwing, presindent from the Workers Party. He got elected in October. The Worker Party is well known for using free software. For example the Rio Grande do Sul State have adopted linux and free software solutions while under their ruling. Now the biggest city in the country, Sao Paulo have just adopted linux in some computer centers for the community. The city is also governed by the Worker Party. I don't know exactly what are Lula's, the new president, ideas concerning free software. But I bet he is sympathetic to the idea too.

But soon after the election (or just before, I really don`t remember now) the Brazilian newspapers said that Bill Gates had invited the new president to "chat"...

Re:I woudnt trust Open Source with my money.

[kitzilla]

The nature of Open Source security issues is rather different. First, the Open Source community is more forthcoming in its report of security vulnerabilities. Second, all the vulnerabilities in the report so fairly reported by a Windows advocacy site have been fixed. Third, most of the security vulnerabilities reported by CERT are less disasterous than their Windows counterparts.

Any OS has security vulnerabilities, including UNIX based systems. The difference between Open Source and MS issues is that MS users are at Microsoft's mercy when it comes to fixing them. Open Source problems are there for anyone to see and patch. Better the devil you know than the devil hidden away behind Redmod's closed source.

Re: Yes but...

[kitzilla]

> Banks get audited, and I beleive (at least in the US) if the government finds out that a bank is risking its servers through the internet they will make them pass a really bad time (and still the public wouldn't know about it).

Brasil is in a LOT more trouble for having the impertinence to elect a Socialist president. Methinks a switch to Linux is pretty low on the radar in comparison. ;-)

No, not amazing

[nurb432]

Most banks actually use big hardware for the REAL data processsing, everything is done via an terminal emulator or complex screen capture programs to make it 'pretty'..

Windows currently is needed for compatiblity with stuff like 'word', 'exchange', and piddly loan processing programs, etc.

So somoene hacks in and grabs a email.. big deal. the statemnts/and $ are safe.

Re:riiight...

[blibbleblobble]

"more likely they just want a fat discount from Microsoft..."

As opposed to a 100% discount by not using microsoft at all?

According to the article, most people just use the bank's one big application, and that's written in java. Linux is good at running java; Windows isn't. Hence they want to run it on linux.

That also means their application is network-accessible, hence you can do work there using only a browser. And if you only want a browser, which operating system would you choose? (hint: perhaps not one with an insecure browser and a broken java machine)