Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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....
This sig no verb.
And they're doing Linux on the desktop, too! Break out the champagne. Somebody actually bothered to see that Linux does Java quickly!
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.
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.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
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?
See my journal, I write things there
Come on! If linus and the other developers didn't want anybody and everybody to use Linux they would have created a different license. The current developers are aware that big companies are using the code and they don't seem to be complaining. What is so cool about this is that for the most part any person in the world can duplicate what these guys are doing FOR FREE and the developers support them just as much as the "big guys". A lot of these big companies contribute code and such to these projects anyways - everyone wins.
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:
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).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
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.
I seriously doubt it is faked. There is always movement between platforms, but for now it appears the movement is in our direction
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 will force Microsoft to change their ways (and as we have seen before, they will).
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) .
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 ;)
"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)
> 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.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
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.
Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy
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.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
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.
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right! =)
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.
This is largely due to the fact that Windows is the incumbant, the one in power. When windows 2000 lands a big customer, it is more of the same. When Linux gets trusted in a mission-critical situation, it's news.
Personally, I look forward to the day when Windows 2000 getting a customer is news, and Linux isn't.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
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.
You say that Linux is less userfriendly than windows. That may be true in some kind of general purpose application, or for the home user.
But this is a bank, they have trained sysadmins that takes care of the things that the users finds difficult. And normally you need less sysadmins to handle a certain number of users on Unix than you do for windows.
The sysadmins can configure user interfiaces that are extremely easy to use. E.g. if the users use six different applications, the sysadmin could have them start on different virtual desktops as the user logs in. And in the rare case that some of those apps would die he could configure a desktop menu with one entry for each program that the user could use to restart the app withour logging out.
Having a simpler work environment like the one I described also reduces the number of support calls.
A environment also makes your emploees focused on their tasks, instead of changeing screen savers, background images, listening to CDs, playing games or other none work related things.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER