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.
Banks have a reputation for being extremely conservative and set in their ways when it somes to changing software, and I'm surprised that a bank would make such a wholesale switch like this, especially to a platform no other bank has really used before. Still, good luck to them, it will be interesting to see who successfull the project will be. Not wanting to start another debate on Linux on the desktop, I won't mention that the plan to throw away all the Windows desktops and replace them with Linux sounds a little over ambitious, not least because of the cost of retraining staff. Mark
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
And they're doing Linux on the desktop, too! Break out the champagne. Somebody actually bothered to see that Linux does Java quickly!
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
Simple economics - employees are far more amenable to changes in their work environment when unemplyment is high. This is exactly the time to make such a change.
I agree. I really think MS needs to offer radically different versions of Windows. I don't need/want the majority of stuff windows comes with. I'd really like a stripped down windows and just add things as I want. Where my grandmother may want all the flashy stuff to be there.
.exe not just the stuff in the Add/Remove Control Panel.
It would be really need to see some stats on the frequency apps that come preinstalled are actually used. I'm talking about every single
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
I have a friend who works for ING Bank, and apparently they are putting together a group to test the feasibility of Linux for their day-to-day. He's complaining because they chose people he considers inferiour, and is trying to get in the project...
Kinda amusing, considering he's a card-holding MSCE.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
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
This seems to be a long term play, since they're spenging huge amounts of money on extremely high end IBM hardware (server side), so logic dictates they;re in it for the long haul since the only way to realize the indicated cost recovery, is to retain this new platform choice for at least 10 years.This is great to see.
Also, several folks have mentioned their concerns regarding trusting open source software with their money. I presume custom banking software will be ported, from it's original platform, so open source vs. closed source is meaningless where the software is all custom developed anyway. Systems with specific definable requirements such as will be used here is significantly easier to secure than systems where hundreds various and sundry services are allowed to continue running. Microsoft won the antitrust suit so we can't expect to see a stripped down truly secure Microsoft OS any time toon. All in all, this seems like wise strategic move.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Simple solution:
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
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
If I may bitch. You don't want a single skillset. You've got a C++/Linux project? Good! Hire half C++/Linux developers, half a mixture TCL/Linux, Perl/BSD, Visual Basic/Windows. You don't want a single skillset. Why? Generally the VB/Windows head will think a certain way. If you actually achieve your fantasy of a single skillset, you've lost the diversity of thought that comes with a staff from multiple backgrounds. People with different skills think of things different ways and can contribute great ideas.
Now if he said, converge on a single goal -- that would be far more encourage and far less pointie haired.
Sorry to harsh the buzz.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
When will Microsoft start publishing (fake?) "user success stories" of switching from Linux to Windows?
- Tal Cohen
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/
Here in Brazil, there are several brazilian and multi-national banks going to linux all they way. The Banestado (a state bank) changed all the ATMs from DOS to Linux. HSBC is using it on several layers of the organization. There's more comming but AFIAK it's not public information yet. Besides, I'm quite convinced there's a few others who already switched but don't tell anyone as a way to keep their internal process secret or just because they think some clients might feel unconfortable to have their accounts managed by a "hacker's OS". Well, whatever ;)
Adilson.
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
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.
The nature of Open Source security issues is rather different. First, the Open Source community is more forthcoming in its report of security vulnerabilities. Second, all the vulnerabilities in the report so fairly reported by a Windows advocacy site have been fixed. Third, most of the security vulnerabilities reported by CERT are less disasterous than their Windows counterparts.
Any OS has security vulnerabilities, including UNIX based systems. The difference between Open Source and MS issues is that MS users are at Microsoft's mercy when it comes to fixing them. Open Source problems are there for anyone to see and patch. Better the devil you know than the devil hidden away behind Redmod's closed source.
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.
I really wish I could remember where I read this, but I read somewhere that one of MSs problems is that they are trying to expand into a market that they really aren't suited for.
They went on to place solaris, linux, and windows into their appropriate market locations
MSs was vastly on the desktop, while holding a modest position in the small server market.
Linux took up the rest of the small server market and had a small chunk of the Large end server market.
Solaris/mainframe systems had the rest of the large end servers.
To the author MS was trying to take hold of more of the small end server market that it could an also trying to wedge itself into the large end server market, all while maintaining the hold on desktop systems. Linux was also trying to take too large a hold of the desktop market instead of just staying with small end servers and the random techno geek.
I really agree with the authors assesment, really wish I could remember who it was. All I know is that he is rather promenent in the tech industry.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Microsoft: Nanny nanny boo boo! Bill: Nanny nanny boo boo! Bwaaaaahaaaahaaaahaaahahahaahahahahahahahaha!
Ser iously now. DOS-based systems have historically been convenient for embedded and other systems that don't have the power to provide complex services. I say DOS-based because there are many different DOS lookalikes that serve the same purposes. Unfortunately, the design of Windows has built too strongly upon assumptions made in DOS, and even though it is no longer running on DOS in newer versions, certain problems do exist due to the system's background. On the other hand, the design of UNIX has always been a better architecture than the DOS-based operating systems for complex, flexible systems that provide reliable services. Although it has many shortcomings, these are being addressed today so the architecture is changing to support the today's needs. Linux gives business the ability to use an architecture close enough to UNIX that it can be considered the same for discussion purposes. It has the support of programmers and heavyweight companies worldwide. It can be customized by anyone for any purpose. Corporations and governments can be sure that no company will hold them or their data hostage. And there are no per-user licensing costs, regardless of Total Cost of Ownership arguments. I strongly believe that these advantages will eventually displace Windows in such a serious manner that, although it will continue to exist, I think it will become one of many "front-end" systems on the market, and Microsoft will have a very difficult time differentiating it from other products so that they will have a competitive advantage with it. Even if assholes, I mean, Microsoft, tries to compete by releasing code or whatever, it'll never help them because nobody cares. And their code is probably a pile of ugly crap that somehow works only because a hundred zillion programmers are hacking it together so that it works somehow. Although they'll probably be around for a while, I have a feeling Microsoft won't be so powerful anymore, and FINALLY, computing won't be held hostage by them. So there... nanny nanny boo boo. I hope that in 10 years, Microsoft's entire distribution will account for 1% of the entire software market. And I hope they don't spread to other markets. Actually, what I really hope is that they'll go out of business through huge fsck-ups that will leave all Windows-based systems crippled, as they are tied into the existance of the company. That would be cool. Microsoft SUCKS! Linux RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! Free Software RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! Open Source RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! BSD RULES! Microsoft SUCKS! Talking shit on them RULES! Microsoft SUCKS!
Most banks actually use big hardware for the REAL data processsing, everything is done via an terminal emulator or complex screen capture programs to make it 'pretty'..
Windows currently is needed for compatiblity with stuff like 'word', 'exchange', and piddly loan processing programs, etc.
So somoene hacks in and grabs a email.. big deal. the statemnts/and $ are safe.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Canada Trust, one of the biggest banks in west Canada (I am not sure about their reach) use linux heavily. I went there to open an account, and while I was answering questions, what was on their desktop? KDE everywhere. People at desks and people working behind the counter were all using Linux and KDE on PCs. I would also suspect that if Linux is used on every desktop that it, or at very least some other Unix is used for all the servers.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
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) .
To: Linus
Subject: Patch to move all rounding errors into a Cayman Islands bank account
superman-III.diff.gz follows....
Anyone want to explain to me how a whopping 9 boxes is considered a "big" account? I may be a bit confused, but last I checked, 9 is a relatively small number. True, not as small, as say negative 10 billion, but since the number of computers can either be be zero or greater, 9 is relatively small. I mean, the only way you could have fewer boxes is if you had 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, or 0 boxes. 9 machines. Whoa. Now, I am blown away. I'm thinking that /. should just start reporting every time someone installs any kind of OSS software at home. Headline, "Bob Smith of BE, NJ installed Redhat on 10 PC's at home today!" Now 10. That would be impressive. More so than 9. One more, actually.
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).
Dear Mr Employee #115932,
You have been fired as under the Company Act Section #3.4 "Don't tell your boss what to do".
Sincerely,
Your Boss.