Lufthansa Systems Chooses Linux

Nice2Cats writes "Remember all of the jokes about operating systems as airlines? Well, Heise is reporting that Linux is just going to take over the computer systems of Germany's airline Lufthansa instead. SuSE and Lufthansa Systems have a joint press release (in German, it should appear here when it comes out in English) out where Karlheinz Natt from Lufthansa Systems gushes (my translation): 'We are registering a steadily increasing demand for Linux-based solutions from our customers.' "

Comments

Lufthansa will not replace their systems

[Anonymous Coward]

In the German press release it says that they will offer Linux as Operating System for their customers because "Customers are asking for linux based solutions"
Aren't they using Netware? http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2002/01/p r02009.html

This has to be fairly expensive in the short term

[dnaboy]

I realize and agree that linux, in the long run, can save tremendous amounts of money for a corporation, but there has to be a huge upfront fee to overhaul and implement an entirely new OS and set of apps. I'm neither a guru in the computer industry, nor the airlines (though I keep high level tabs on both), but the timing seems odd, given that the airlines are all hemmoraging money right now...

Good idea

[Pharmboy]

Actually, using open source software is probably a good idea for ANY govt., since it not only gives them the opportunity to inspect the code, but also make changes. As long as the govt. doesn't get into the distribution business, it doesn't even have to put their changes back into the pool, although it would be a good idea for most code.

Another benefit is you don't have to worry about the vendor of the OS 'buying off' govt. officials to use their operating system. Since their is no one company that produces linux, it means they always have choices.

The other benefits are price. its not that linux is free, price wise, because its really not considering you usually need support as you would with any OS. But you can choose from more companies for support, different flavors of Linux for different projects (and still have it being compatable) Also, since it is an open standard it is cheaper to maintain. Since governments pay for all this software with their citizens taxes, a system that has the potential to save millions means more money in taxpayers pockets, or at least being spent on other projects.

Microsoft or no Microsoft, do YOU feel comfortable with your government having only ONE vendor and source for operating systems for critical services?

Re:Good idea

[christophersaul]

I like and use Linux, but these kinds of argumnents miss the point about what most IT departments are interested in from their technolody.

Linux' development model creates some good products, but few people want to actively change those products - they want someone else to do it for them.

Few Government departments are interested in looking at the code. They want systems that work. What use is say, a housing benefit system that's crap but has source code, when compared to a working closed source application. The cost of people who can look at code is also prohibitive. Even if you had them what are they going to do, look at the code and say 'yes it's crap and yes it'll cost you lots of money and time to hire someone to make it better'?

Lufthansa are nothing to do with the German Govt.

As you mention, support needs to be bought, so what's to stop those organisations buying off govt officials? Having the blueprints to the trucks your local council buys doesn't stop people being bought off, nor would source code being available for applications when services are being sold around those apps.

You can choose from 100s of companies for support of plenty of operating systems and solutions, Linux is nothing special. You aren't going to adjust the source code to your Red Hat dsitribution, you'd wait till Red Hat fixed it.

Linux isn't an open standard, but it does use open standards, as do many other OSes. Using open standards also doesn't necessarily makes something cheaper to maintain.

No government uses only one vendor for critical services.

Re:Good idea

[Spellbinder]

maybe your company could use the same opensource project your government issued money on
if the government spends 300 bucks on opensource it is not the same as if it spends it on Ms
everybody will be able to use the solution

Re:Good idea

[Pharmboy]

Linux' development model creates some good products, but few people want to actively change those products - they want someone else to do it for them.

This is simply NOT true for larger institutions. Maybe you dont change it for your home use, but a larger corporation or entity generally WILL to some extent.

As you mention, support needs to be bought, so what's to stop those organisations buying off govt officials? Having the blueprints to the trucks your local council buys doesn't stop people being bought off, nor would source code being available for applications when services are being sold around those apps.

Because the public can SEE every expendature that a govt. makes. If MS (for example) buys off Sen. Smith to use windows products, you may not know, because the price quoted is from the only source. If RedHat tries to bribe Sen. Smith, and the public sees that they are 'buying' copies of redhat for $150 each, or paying $1200 an hour for support, we have something to compare to, since RedHat is not the only company that supports Linux. No one said Linux makes people bribe proof, it simply makes the system somewhat more accountable since you have a larger reference to judge it against.

Linux is POSIX compatable, and based upon the Unix standard, which IS a standard. This is why you can run *most* software designed for AIX, OSX, BSD, or even SCO if you have the source and can make (usually) minor modifications. Because much of this software is OSS, it is free. They don't pay for sendmail, apache, GCC, BIND, vsftp/proftp/wuftp, squirrelmail, and the hundreds of other standard programs you would have to pay for with Unix or MS. You also don't pay a per seat or per cpu license, or have to pay someone to keep up with license auditing, so less, by being an open and fully supported standard (ie: *nix) it IS cheaper.

No government uses only one vendor for critical services.

What about all the Windows NT4 boxes the govt. uses?

I built their webfarm personally!

[Mister Transistor]

I consult to company in the Chicago area who hosts their US website. I was contracted to build their webfarm!

I am normally a Redhat fan, but they insisted I use SuSE 7 (the latest at the time) running on a cluster of 10 Compaq DL380's, using a cool content-based traffic load-balancing switch to make the individual servers into a _non-beowulf_ cluster!

I got the whole thing up and running, then web-hardened the servers, and then let the boys from Munich do their customization and configuration.

It was a fun project, one I'm proud of...

Netcraft story

[bstadil]

Well You are wrong, Look at this Netcraft story not cover by Slashdot

Quote:

At the time many analysts speculated that SCO's behaviour might deter enterprise companies from using Linux. However, this has not happened to date, at least in respect of their internet visible web sites. In the last two months Linux has made a net gain of over 100 enterprise sites; sites which have migrated to Linux including Royal Sun Alliance, Deutsche Bank, SunGard,T-online and most noteworthy, Schwab

LH Systems - What they do

[anonymous cupboard]

LH Systems is a daughter company of Lufthansa. I don't work there but some of my friends do. They do airline systems for Lufthansa and others, such as Yield Management, Cargo, Reservations and Ticketing and so on. They traditionally did a lot with Unisys in this area and they also have a lot of expertise with thin client systems and vertical applications.

However these days they have signed up other customers like Deka Bank (a traditional German Bank).

When you are looking at systems that have a relatively narrowly defined functionality, you don't want to have XP licenses everywhere. Much of their front end could easily be done by a minimalist PC with Linux, better than loading it with XP. For the backend, they work with big databases, but they still want ways of flexibly adding and removing backend capacity to suit their customer's changing needs. Windows licensing for servers, frankly, sucks. The moment you start to add capacity, you must also add lots of licenses and then follow th MS led upgrade dance.

Frankly we are not talking about computers, we are talking about functional black boxes marked with labels like "Reservation System". This is very attractive to their customer base as they can buy a cheap solution.