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."

Comments

I'm shorting MS stock.

[samuel4242]

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.

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[Quixote]

I was in my bank recently, and saw only 1 application running on the screen, in fullscreen mode: tn3270. Thats it. Everything that they do is done via tn3270 to an IBM mainframe. Now you tell me: what is the point in paying $100 to M$ and $? to the maker of tn3270?

Re:I'm shorting MS stock.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nobody every got fired for choosing Microsoft.

Not true.

At the company where I work, the previous sysadmin was fired because he wouldn't stop using ActiveX in the company website.

In California, a vice-president of a bank was apparently fired due to his decision to use Windows NT in the bank's ATMs. The Windows-based ATMs kept locking up with BSODs (there were pictures of a BSOD'd ATM on the Internet).

And everyone lost their jobs when the company that bought out my former employer went bankrupt. The buyer was trying to reduce costs in anticipation of an IPO, and, despite our warnings, they insisted on replacing our "expensive" Unix servers with Windows NT servers. As a result, our formally-loyal customers started leaving in droves. The problem was that our customers were stock brokers, who required 100% uptime, and the new NT servers couldn't match the near-perfect record of the Unix servers they replaced (similar to the experience that Microsoft had with Hotmail).

So don't tell me that nobody ever gets fired for choosing Microsoft. It happens every day.

And it's going to happen even more often as business leaders learn about the benefits of Linux. Employers are going to realize that when they hire an MCSE, they are hiring someone who has been trained to put Microsoft's interests ahead of what may be best for their own company.

Sounds a bit unlikely

[moderators_are_w*nke]

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

Re:Sounds a bit unlikely

[Trane Francks]

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.

Bogus, particularly with high unemployment

[Ars-Fartsica]

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.

Need for diverse windows versions.

[Flamesplash]

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.

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 .exe not just the stuff in the Add/Remove Control Panel.

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[Lobsang]

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...

Hardware costs or Support costs

[hillct]

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

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[fanatic]

Unfortunately, MS Office is like a virus: You might do the right thing(tm) but chances are your neighbor won't...

Simple solution:

Dear Sir or Madam:

You have sent a file to me in a format I can't read. Since the extension is (xls|doc|whatever), I assume this is a Microsoft office file. You can save this file in a format that is more useable to me and others by opening the file, using the File->SaveAs menus and selecting (text|RichTextFormat|HTML|whatever) and saving. Please send me the file that results.

While I regret any incovenience this may cause, it is necessary for our ongoing technology upgrade, part of which is to lessen our dependence on proprietery file formats which change at the whim of a single company, and require the use of expensive, insecure software.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely Based On Merit

[FreeUser]

To me this sounds like they simply needed to revamp their whole setup to start with, be it with 3 windows/Mac/*nix servers.

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:

• Lower licensing cost
  
• Lower TCO (less manhours for same productivity)
  
• Added simplicity in management and deployment
  
• Freedom from having one's vendor yank one's chain (this is probably the most important aspect, and advantage of free software over proprietary equivelents)
  

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).

Hold on there

[Bouncings]

Reading the article, a quote jumped out at me:

In the future, he said, the bank hoped staff would converge to a single skill-set.

Ok, I generally like the sound of companies jumping ship to Linux, but we've heard the "converge to a single skill-set" dozens of times in the past few decades, and seldom with favorable results.

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.

Re:Not Based on Merit, Just a Reorg.

[zulux]

If you have One NT server and One *nix Server, and you're stupid, the NT server *is* easier to administrate. Just noodle around with the mouse and find the settings.

If you have more than one server, *nix is always faster to adminitrate.

Examples:

I can fully administrate any of my FreeBSD/OpenBSD servers from anywhere in the workd using my Iridium Phone and a Psion Revo with an SSH client. Windows 'remote-desktop' won't work at all over the Iridium phone's 2400 baud connection. There goes my hike and I scurry back to civilisation.

I can compile a versions of Samba for any arcatecture on one box, and deploy the new version remotely, without user intervention. Try getting your NT on Aplha box to deply a change to Windows-2000 box on AMD, without user intervention.

Try pulging in a laptop into your COM1 port and see what you get on Windows - on my Unix boxes you get a shell that you can log into, and fully administer your computer. If you lucky - and did major hacking, you might be able to get a cmd.exe over COM1 - but cmd.exe is useless.

Can you get your Widnows servers to bood diskless over a network? Nope.

The fact is Unix has had 25 years to get it right on some of the most advanced hardware in the world. Windows 7 year old a cludgy GUI layer on a bad VMS clone on PC hardware. No wonder is sucks.

What else banks are

[Bouncings]

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.

Not at all!

[adilsonoliveira]

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.

Has ANYONE Notice?????

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

MSs Place in the Market

[Flamesplash]

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.

Re:MSs Place in the Market

[shaitand]

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 ;)

No, not amazing

[nurb432]

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.

Not without precedent

[donglekey]

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.

Don't stop there.

[PyroX_Pro]

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) .

Superman III Patch

[Taos]

To: Linus
Subject: Patch to move all rounding errors into a Cayman Islands bank account

superman-III.diff.gz follows....

The bottom line.

[cyt0plas]

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.

Re:Inter Bank communications!

[Kashif Shaikh]

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.