Slashdot Mirror
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.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Before all you Slashbots start screaming "Windoze Suxors!", read the article, and realize Merill is replacing their UNIX systems with Linux. There is no mention of replacing any Windows systems.
It hurts when I pee.
The Blue Sky of Death!!
Perhaps that's what they mean by "Even more important, who is accountable?" I am guessing that the costs are support costs to (ostensibly) RedHat, so that they can, indeed, call someone when it breaks.
Seems to me this article wasn't very well written, you have to read between the lines a lot. I'd like to know more about how they're implementing it: distribution, updates, standard image, etc
In Vino Veritas
Quoth JWZ: Linux is only free if your time isn't worth anything...
Damn those pesky business men and the concept of time equalling money. Damn them all.
*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
$$$$$$+$$$$$-$$$$$=$$$$
LInux is NOT free as in 0$ (beer)
They are free as in Red Hat + Effort & $ = Merril Lynch Linux. Or Big Money Linux. Or I Am Free To Customise The Code Any Damn Way I Want To Because the Code Is Free As In Speech Linux.Good Move ML. I hope to see the other big firms follow suite.
"Would I put an air traffic control system on Linux right now? No," says Carey. "But can it get there within five years? Absolutely."
Actually, I work in the aviation sector, and we've been using Linux for years for computing flight plans and relaying AFTN messages.
I know I would feel safer if the air traffic control is on Linux rather than any version of Windows...
God yes. On the other hand, even as a GPL bigot and Linux zealot, I wouldn't want Linux running air traffic control stuff either, not yet anyhow. This is what QNX, et al, were *made* for.
On the other hand, who knows? One of the great things about Linux is that in a few years it may just be good enough for air traffic control, etc.
The Free desktop that Just Works
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.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I hate that fucking quotation. If I never heard it again, it would be too soon. It's not like I boot into Windows, say "Computer, write the year-end fiscal report," and go golfing for the afternoon.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Thousands of copies getting potentially used means revenues of, what, about $150 for that single copy?
Marge, CALL MY BROKER AND BUY RED HAT! BUY BUY BUY!!
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
But, the column explicitly mentions "large-scale licensing agreements". Huh? Support agreements, sure, but licensing? The software is already available under a very large-scale licensing agreement: the GNU General Public License.
I'm confused.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Obviously Lisa DiCarlo really understands the comcepts in the story she just wrote. Yeah.
First, Merrill Lynch praised the portability of Linux applications and their ability to scale across the enterprise, with a swipe at proprietary applications. Maybe they'll wake up for a moment, and realize what their most locked-in platform is.
Second, this seems to be largely a matter of Linux moving into Unix turf. I expect to see some minor disasters happen with this type of migration, and that's a Good Thing. Why, because part of the savings is moving onto dirt cheap PCs from expensive hardware. Part of the expense of that old hardware is the label, but part is genuine quality, too. After someone starts to get a handle on money lost because PCs are too cheap, causing down-time and even some erroneous data, there will be a move to put some quality back in. We will all have a better quality spectrum to buy from, and it will be better labeled and reviewed.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Not all Linux software is Free Software. Things like StarOffice or whatever might be considered as essential elements in this sort of move on the part of a large company-- somewhere in there I'd guess there is going to be one piece of licensed code. They might also obtain some custom code from a Linux development shop that they have the source for, but is not free in any sense of the word. Plus the cost to customize and burn "official" install CDs for the enterprise is not free of some cost.
I do not have a signature
1) How do you work around the complete lack of server-side productivity software on Linux servers? By deploying Exchange, you can make scheduling a meeting as easy as sending an email with a time and having everyone click to confirm the meeting, which is then added to everyone's calendar. There is no solution like this without using Exchange (and I've looked.)
You have to understand this doesn't have much of anything to do with Linux, at least what they are using it for; you're talking about extending functionality of an email client/server. I'd suspect to see stuff coming from Ximian in this area as they target the desktop. However, with no users to support the development of such a project it's currently not worth it. Also this article isn't about desktop usage, it's about server usage. If you want the answer to that question
you simply just have to look at who currently uses linux and for what. You also have to look at the numbers of users on desktop.
2) How do you work around the lack of group policy controls in SAMBA? By this I mean forcing a computer to have the most up-to-date anti-virus software when it logs on to the domain; mapping network drives automatically; downloading OS patches automatically through a local server. AFAIK, Samba can't do any of this as well as a Windows 2000 Server can. And what about Active Directory? LDAP isn't as cohesive a solution if you are running Windows clients.
Blah this can be done if you know what you're doing, with some scripts. Not only that but I believe RedHat provides some type of functionality for this. Samba can't do the almighty everything without proper documentation and records/structures. Obviously Microsoft doesn't provide this so you take what you get for free. Last I checked you didn't pay for Samba, also last
I checked Microsoft hasn't released any specs recently enabling such operation, for any of the above you mention. However again you get this stuff for free, so you save costs and get minimal functionality if you have to support Windows users. If you're a windows based shop you have to pay thats what it boils down to.
From this article, I have to think that Merrill Lynch and others are changing their external server infrastructure, not their internal IT infrastructure.
This has nothing to do with external/internal infrastructure; they are replacing their sun boxen with linux boxen because it's cheaper and they get more bang for their buck. Wall St has used Unix for most of their vital financial etc etc transactions, they use os/2 as well. You won't find NT in operation anywhere the word "vital" is important on Wall St. For the most part this sounds totally alien of any internal/external server infrastructure I'd have to believe, that is how Wall st works.
The other conclusion I must draw is that the companies that are migrating to Linux as a workgroup server (i.e. replacing Windows NT/2000 Server with Linux) did not have a cohesive Windows network in the first place. Unfortunately, Linux is nowhere near a solution to Exchange, and it's perhaps 25% of the way to replacing a Windows 2000 primary domain controller's capabilities.
Blah, Exchange is an server application it has nothing to do with the rest of the network, and thats why Ximian just released it's Ximian Connector or whatever for Evolution. If Linux does make it on the desktop then their is a migratrion path and I'd figure if Ximian saw something like this coming down the pipe they'd look into replacing Exchange. There just isn't demand for something like that right now.. Just see #1 reply. You can't be serious about the pdc comment; thats all I have to say about that, I mean that is mostly laughable.
So what servers is Merrill Lynch migrating? Linux does have its core competencies -- web servers; application servers; network storage to some degree -- but they didn't mention what part of the infrastructure they were replacing. I would thus take the words "companywide" with a grain of salt in this case.
The article does say they are migrating their sun boxen, so thats what I tend to believe. Whatever functionality their sun boxen had is what they
would reproduce on Linux. Since you say all the above is not possible you should be able to deduce that it's most likely none of the above, once you
deduced that you'd either have the idea to ask Merril Lynch themselves or just leave the question unanswered. "Network storage on Linux" to some degree; stop throwing mud, that is totally unfounded and I and alot of other people would disagree with you. I seem to remember something about Veritas supporting Redhat in those list of companies. Not only that but there are many companies already using linux for their Sans. This comment again is extremely laughable.
"Companywide" I tend to take that meaning anything that was on a sun box that can be reproduce on a linux box and retain the same functionality and
uptime will be replaced with said linux boxen. It's also cheaper; would you like water with that tremendously big grain of salt or will some other
beverage accomdate you simply because it is taken place already or soon will be.
sPh
you forgot the last step:
time = money
knowledge = power
work = power * time
work = knowledge * money
money = work / knowledge
QED: as knowledge --> 0, money --> infinity
cpeterso
Actually, the only thing surprising here is that they're talking about it. Wall Street firms usually consider things like this their "competitive advantage" and don't want everyone to know what they're doing. They wouldn't mind if their competitors kept using more expensive proprietary hardware/software solutions...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Try to get a copy of Suse Linux for S/390. They charge for the distribution per CPU. Like $6000 per CPU.
Sure the software is free, but you still pay for the bundling and the distribution of the software, and there is no specification as to how or how much they charge for those services...
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I guess they are playing both sides.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/fe b0 2/02-13revolutionpr.asp
I work for one of the largest banks in the world (Top 5) and we almost ditched our entire Windows Server infrastructure in favor of Linux. Why? Not because it wasn't working.
Unlike a lot of MS haters, we know how to use Windows. Strangely enough, when used the way MS intended it works pretty well.
Instead we considered Linux for similar reasons as Merril Lynch. When we asked MS for a deal on licencing our 300+ Windows 2000 Servers the way they did for Windows NT4.0, not only did they say "No" they auditted our current licences and told use we owe them money! They were the ones who sold us the licences in the first place!
So on top of each Windows 2000 Server licence, they want client access licences for EVERY computer (6000+) and a yearly subscription fee for god knows what!
I mean, what's the point of a server if no one can access it? Per-seat licencing for 6000+ workstations?
It wasn't until we weighed it against the cost of redeveloping 120 applications for Linux that we decided to cave. MS knows this. They waited for companies to become dependant on their OS before jacking up the price. What Merril Lynch is doing is not whoop-de-doo! another company went to Linux!, it's truly amazing. For such an enormous organization to revamp on such a huge scale takes cahones.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. :)
grnbrg
King Canute, king of Denmark, Norway, and -- after a series of battles -- England circa 1015-1035.
The fable is a mistelling of the story. Allegedly Canute had his throne carried to the shore where he sat as the tide came in (he did not drown), in order to prove to flattering courtiers who were saying that he was "so great he could command the tides" that of course he was not, that even kings were as nothing in the face of God's power.
However, I take your point about Linux.
-- Alastair
Financial firms were the primary customer of NeXT Computer (absorbed into Apple, or the other way around). Having been the first commercial object-oriented GUI, it allowed quick development of interfaces for financial software. NeXT would have failed long before, even with Steve's millions.
It's not like I boot into Windows, say "Computer, write the year-end fiscal report," and go golfing for the afternoon.
Thankfully, you can do just that with our new project, "Year End Fiscals" for linux. Currently in Alpha, version 0.000121001, it'll allow you to simply type "fiscals -yearend" (at a minimum) and walk away while it generates your documents.
Try it out. Features 1,2,3,5,7-22 and 24-492 inclusive have yet to be implemented, but it will properly accept the first of our command line parameters (of which 132 are planned).
We don't have a completed plan, so if anybody can lend a hand, we'd appreciate it. We need coders, project managers, and economists.
At some point in the distant future, when things are working perfectly, we'll also need documentation specialists. Oh, wait - I've been informed that the coders can write the documentation as they go.
Oh yeah - no reliability, no support.
Note: tongue firmly in cheek!
About two years ago I met some people in the tech dept. at Merrill. Most of them were very aware of the cost savings involved, but were concerned about how well it would integrate in with their trading workstations, which were all SUNs. The software that was run on those workstations was closed-source, and therefore could not be easily ported.
Since that meeting, I learned of two things that happened. One is that Merrill has moved towards Microsoft Windows 2000 for their trading workstations, because software from Instinet, Reuters and Bloomberg is easily available for that platform. The other thing is that SUN has been using strongarm tactics to try and keep Merrill (and probably other companies) buying their hardware.
I don't have any details on what tactics were being employed, but apparently it lead to this switch to Linux.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
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.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
First of all, all that stuff is horribly outdated.
DD(x) is the future of the Navy. The current fleet of battleships run a system called AEGIS which runs on top of HP-UX. NT has very limited use in non-tatical systems. You have to understand, the Navy has a _very_ strict QA and development process and systems don't actually get used tactically for almost 10 years it seems.
The future OS to run on DD(x) is up for grabs right now. MS federal systems has teamed up with the Blue Team so if they win, expect to see MS having a bigger role. That's not necessarily a bad thing though because the system is based on Java so not as many bad things can happen. Either way, with the thorough QA process, they should even be able to configure NT to be secure after 10 years.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
In any large company you are going to have a large variety of technologies.
Notice how Mr. Vielehr is identified as CTO, but there is the phrase "private client technology" behind that... That's probably a separate division of the company and they do things differently than other divisions.
The way this Linux article is worded, they are replacing some of their systems with Linux... most likely existing Sun systems from the sound of it. But that doesn't preclude that they also have a great many Windows systems, both desktop and server.