NYSE Goes To Linux

Aligrip writes "It appears that IBM has convinced the folks at the Securities Industry Automation Corp (SIAC) to move their entire trading network to Linux as explained in this article in the Investors Business Daily. The authors predict that this deal could give Linux "a hot new beachhead with financial institutions". Cool!"

Comments

IBM

[briggsb]

This illustrates the importance of having a big company behind Linux. Do you think RedHat or RMS could have convinced the SIAC to switch? Fraid not.

Maybe they can put some code in there to boost some of the Linux stocks now...

Not bad, but not as big as one might think.

[Thomas M Hughes]

Graham says SIAC converted to Linux quickly because of the software's open, flexible nature. "We were able to port our Artmail application in about two-and-a-half days," Graham said.

I would speculate they weren't running NT before if it was that easy to port their software over. So this takes a chunk out of the proprietary Unix market, sure, but if we were to consider this a Zero Sum game, Unix loses, Linux gains, Microsoft doesn't change a thing.

Now granted, other Unix shops might now say 'Well, if the NYSE does it, we can do it too!' But the Microsoft market won't feel any pressure from this until there is a similar porting comment when coming from a Windows shop.

Re:Not bad, but not as big as one might think.

[bockman]

I would speculate they weren't running NT before if it was that easy to port their software over.

They where using Solaris on SUN HW (it is said somewhere else in the article ).

Yes, they are replacing expensive UNIX machines with less expensive(?) Linux boxes, plus a bunch of proprietary software (Tivoli is mentioned), plus an IBM mainframe (also mentioned in the article) presumably running IBM mainframe OS (can't remember the name) with mayby Linus as 'Virtual OS' of each 'Virtual Machine'.

It is interesting that IBM did not propose their own version of Unix. Maybe it is true that they are dropping it in favor of Linux. Or maybe it is because AIX does not run on Intel CPU (or it does?) and would have made the deal much more expensive.

Surely they have managed to badly hit SUN, both on money and on PR level. En passant, they have managed to promote Linux as a valid (and most of all cheap) platform on which build proprietary solutions. One could hope that other UNIX vendors (including SUN itself) follows and that Linux can become really the 'Unix Defragmentation Tool'. It would be something, at least.

unfortunately, this is just one battle

[kootch]

WAY too many financial institutions use M$ languages and OS's for their internal users... like customer support and other operations centers. VB applications abound...

I've found that the best way to get companies to move away from M$ programming languages is to suggest the portability and standardization and other benefits that occur when you start making your apps available through a web interface. Then, as the developer on that project, keep everything as cross-platform, cross-browser as possible. Once the frontend/interface doesn't require a M$ language to support it, there becomes less of a reason to stay on the architecture.

In addition, this approach is becoming much more successful since EVERYONE is trying to cut costs... and what's a better way to cut costs then eliminate the need for costly M$ licenses?

2 birds, 1 stone

[beanerspace]

Just an errant thought as I read the article. Could it be the old giant, IBM has shown us some of the blue-fu that has kept this company around near or on the top for so many years ? For example:

Bird 1 - undercutting Sun high-end
"SIAC's Artmail applications previously ran on Sun Microsystems Inc. servers that used Unix. But they will now run on IBM Linux servers linked to an IBM mainframe system."

IBM's girthieness has been a liability in the past. Not so much for the hardware itself; though expensive. Rather, much of the rub has been on the expense and limitations of its operating system, as anyone using MVS will attest. Linux literally flips that around against it's competitors, forcing companies such as Sun's high-end to compete chip-to-chip with IBM's mid to low end iron.

Stone 2 - Microsoft's cost of Open Source argument
"Though basic Linux software is free, IBM makes money by selling the middleware that links Linux with existing software and computer systems at places like SIAC. It also makes money by selling Linux servers and services for Linux-based systems."

Here IBM parlays one of its biggest, and most enduring strengths ... selling services. Let's face it, there's not much in the way of COTS that Microsoft can FUD with when it comes to Wall Streeters, and their propensity to roll and re-roll their own apps.

Kudos to someone where at Itty Bitty Machines for figuring this one out.

Don't kid yourself

[blakestah]

Don't think for a second that MS execs' stomachs are not turning over about this deal.

This is a key financial services application, and opens the door for acceptance of linux in key financial markets. Microsoft was going to undersell and overmarket traditional UNIX vendors and eat into the server market. Once their foot was in the door, extend and embrace.

Guess what - the markets grow from the bottom. It happened with DOS against MacOS. It happened with Windows95 against OS/2. It happened with NT against Unix. And now it is happening with linux against Windows.

This could have been a HUGE win for Microsoft. Instead, it is another notch in IBM's belt, and a huge boost for linux in the perception of CTOs. Microsoft can't buy that kind of publicity.