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.
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
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...
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
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
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 ;)
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).