Wall Street Embraces Linux

Brian Stretch was among several who sent in this story about Merrill Lynch switching to Linux, this is interesting because it's actually companywide. Talks about Red Hat, Linux threatening Unix and so on.

Comments

Re:correction taco...

[Gizzmonic]

Nope, there's no correction necessary. Linux hasn't done much displacing Windows, but it has done worlds getting rid of Big Iron that costs 3x as much to set up. And what does that mean?

Linux is killing Big Iron. It's hurting Sun in particular. People started running Linux so they could get UNIX-like functionality and performance on their cheap Intel boxes. Whether it has reached that point of being as good as Solaris/AIX/IRIX is debatable, but the fact is people are dumping their UNIX boxes for cheap x86 boxes running Linux.

What does that mean for the bigger picture? Say goodbye to high-performance computing outside the Intel-compatible world. PA-RISC? Dead. Alpha? Dead. MIPS? Not even close to competing anymore. SPARC? Future questionable. PowerPC? It's an okay chip, but the outdated I/O on Apple machines negates any (debatable in the first place) performance advantage it might have.

What might seem good at first (more Linux everywhere) is bad for the future of high-performance computing.

Linux seems to be helping shore up Intel's hardware monopoly, as well as lengthening the lifespan of the decrepit x86 architecture.

Re:Linux not really "free"?

[cavemanf16]

I read Forbes all the time. I have a subscription to it, after all. Basically, understand that every part of a business is considered an asset, so logically, software is an asset of a company. So like the previous guy said, when Forbes talks about Linux not being "free," they mean that just like any software, there are add-ons, customizations, and DBA's that all need to be purchased and hired to implement and support the software, be it Linux or otherwise. What's notable is that Merril Lynch must have found it much more cost effective to switch from their previous software to Linux for certain tasks. Considering they are a top securities firm, I'm sure the money factor was analyzed much more closely and accurately than the "principal of the thing" or "useability" would have been in a more IT related company.

Re:Favorite quote

[isaac]

But there are risks in putting so much behind Linux. For starters, there are legal implications. Does anybody own the intellectual property of the "open-source" software? How exposed are companies to patent violation?

Obviously Lisa DiCarlo really understands the comcepts in the story she just wrote. Yeah.

If you're just being sarcastic, she seems to have a better grasp on the risks of using Linux than you do. The question of ownership is sticky - the owner of any particular bit of code might be difficult to determine and impossible to track down. This has some bearing on her question about patent violations which is frankly quite legitimate. Consider a company that is using open source software and has made changes to it to meet internal requirements. Suppose then a software company comes along claiming infringement of patented methods in that software package - is the company using the software liable if the software is found to be infringing because in changing the source they have become authors of the software? (Obviously not the sole authors, but said company may have much deeper pockets than the original authors.) I don't think this situation has yet been litigated, making the risk of liability difficult to quantify.

Basically, if you think current copyright law has a chilling effect on open source development, wait until the big dogs break out their patent portfolios. It's gonna get ugly.

-Isaac

Why I write these posts.

[SlashChick]

Hmm, you checked out my homepage, but interestingly enough, you didn't check Netcraft to see what my server was running... ;)

I write these kinds of posts (pro-Microsoft, etc.) for two reasons:

1) People respond with better answers to a post filled with half-truths or a post from someone who they believe is "misinformed";
2) I really do want to know what corporations use if they don't use Microsoft products.

This about it this way: the sales people at Microsoft are out there every day selling their product. They are out there telling your PHB every day that Exchange is better, that SAMBA won't do the half of what Windows 2000 Server will do, and that an all-Windows infrastructure is the way to go.

The real question is: what can you tell your PHB to dispute that?

That's why I write these. Often, the best way to find alternatives is to say something decidedly biased toward one camp. Come on, admit it -- you'd much rather hit "reply" to someone who is wrong or half-right than someone who says "What is the best solution for xxx?" You're also much more likely to provide real, concrete evidence that your product is superior instead of just saying "Hey, Product Y will do xxx! Go check out their homepage."

Now, I can take this information and hand it to the guy who is looking for an Exchange alternative, and I can say, "Look, why don't we check out Products Y and Z, because they might really fit the bill." I can then hand him what is basically a brochure describing migration problems and benefits of changing to the other products. Not only have I provided a solution, but I haven't asked you for bullet points -- I've asked you to prove that your product is better.

It's marketing, pure and simple. I learn infinitely more by writing what I hear from Microsoft salespeople and having Slashdotters prove it wrong than I would asking a question somewhere. Plus, I get to hear and make contact with people who have actually used the product. And in some cases, I get people admitting that the Microsoft solution is the best one out there, in which case that is what I will take back to my customers.

Try it sometime. You might be surprised at what you can learn.