Linux And the Enterprise Environment

aword writes "Computerworld cites that private financial services sector have moved to Linux more than any other sector. This too is mostly on the server side only. Enterprisewide linux deployments for desktop users have been few and far between. From the article." From the article: "On the server side, perhaps no single industry has tested Linux's enterprise mettle more than the financial services sector. Companies were facing mounting pressure to cut costs at the turn of the millennium. The Internet bubble was about to burst. Prices were fluctuating wildly. Order volume and data traffic were spiking in the wake of the electronic trading boom. Revenue was not."

Comments

Not just *nix moving

[WindBourne]

I had a friend that was at the chicago stock exchange 5-7 years ago. At that time, he helped move them from VMS to Windows. It turned out that they were having all sort of issues and outlandish costs. So they switched up to Linux. Apparently, it was a bit of work, but their costs have gone below what the VMS was costing them (not to mention what Windows was).

Interestingly, he moved to a software company that owns a big chunk of the futures industry. Up till recently, they have been doing windows, but are now quietly working on Linux products for the trader desktop. Apparently, they have customers insisting on it.

Not suprising...

[MosesJones]

The finance industry does the most of EVERYTHING in the IT industry. The most Linux, the most Windows, the most COBOL etc... what the IT sector in finance REALLY excels at however is doing "cool stuff" with new technology....

When Linux really gets big is when those with more concerns buy into it... people in Manufacturing for instance, or in supply chains. Paid less, but normally with a better understanding of what it takes to build a system that lasts 20 years.

Linux is definately making it in those sectors, and that is better news IMO than the Finance sector.

Isn't that obvious?

[mpontes]

In the private sector, ever cent counts. I mean, we're talking about financial services, these people can do the math about the costs. If I worked for a company and had the option of save the company thousands of dollars in software and licenses, that's what I would do, switch to Free alternatives when possible and make my boss happy.

Re:Isn't that obvious?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

In financial services actually there isn't really an "every cent counts" mentality when it comes to IT. I cannot say I have an unlimited budget, but cost is VERY low on the priority list. The PTB, don't really care about a few hundred thousand (or even million) here and there. It often isn't blinked at spending tens of thousands to just setup an environment to demo some software. When looking at software, we've gone with 500k systems over almost identical systems 80k systems just for some tiny piece of functionality which we didn't even use for over a year.

IT budgets don't tend to be too tight in wall street shops (as they are seen as key areas for competitive advantage). Its functionaliy and stability that rules. Price is considered, but it trails very distant. Stability/security is why Linux does so well in these environments, not price. Now all that said, MS systsems also are growing pretty well in such environments. Linux is killing Unix in these areas. We used to be a huge IBM Unix shop, but much of that is now Linux. This is where "crital" systems sit. MS Exchange, AD, ect are also getting pretty big. Traditionaly most shops were Notes shops, but because of interagration abilities with document management, fax server, etc, etc third-party software MS often ends up running these systems which aren't so critical because of the extra functionality they offer. I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas.

Re:I tried this this weekend....

[Tezkah]

Before you start complaining here about anything, maybe you should have asked yourself, what do I want to be doing with my computer? I only boot Windows to play a few games I like. Everything else I do under Linux - with absolutely no problems. I can log into my router - with konqueror or firefox - play video and music files without skipping, and use all of my nVidia graphics card's available resolution (well, not quite all, but monitor won't support the max the card will).

If your DSL connection is running into your router, there's no reason for your provider to have stated that 'linux is not supported'.

And I hate to break this to you also, but I've owned a couple machines (with nothing wierd in them) that only Linux would install and boot up. My parents' last computer wouldn't run Win95, 98, or NT. But Mandrake 6.1 installed onto it fine, found all the hardware (including the unusual printer they have), and ran fine. (It was a 400Mhz K6-II with 256M RAM.)

I've set up Linux for a bunch of 'real average Jane' students, and they don't even notice a difference. After getting one set up with Mandrake, Firefox, and GAIM, her roommate came in and asked "oh, is that a new version of AIM?" not "what happened to windows?".

My roommate MS work centered around using Linux machines with video capture cards, so I don't know what you were trying to do that you couldn't. the All In Wonder cards from ATI are pretty popular, and have extensive driver support.

So, I'm calling complete bull on you. I'm not an ultra fanatical linux geek, either. I just use it, and it works. It takes no longer to boot than XP, and has far more useful application to me (lack of viruses, ease of ssh access to other machines, higher granular control over individual resources) than Windows ever has.

RealTime systems

[lightyear4]

I imagine realtime, up-to-the-second updates of servers are important in the finance world. I suppose stock exchanges and such have a lot to deal with given the volume and speed of the markets. That said, do such OSes as RTlinux or QNX have any place here?

True Story

[rwade]

Some might suggest that Windows' dominating success in the consumer market flies in the face of the ideal of excellence via consumer.

However, such an analogy does not apply to Linux. Windows' major shortcoming has always been -- though it has been almost irrelevant, for consumers, with the advent of XP -- its instability, a problem that most admit is not a character of Linux.

Unfortunately, there is some truth, though, to what Steve Balmer says regarding the true cost of Linux. That's not to say that Linux is simply inadequate period; it may, however, be unsuitable to some situations.

Re:Commodity HW, customizable code - win/win

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

...run it on commodity hardware...

My guess is that serious financial is not done on run-of-the-mill "commodity" hardware.

Re:Consumers Key

[tempest69]

The success of linux in any market is almost entirely based on it's suitability. Even as much as I like linux, I wouldn't dream of trying to load RedHat on my parents PC. Linux will manage to gain footholds in areas where it is a suitable technology.

However a large userbase ala windows will provide a larger developer base, and allow for more applications in a given area.

Windows has managed to be a monster in the desktop side, but that are a joke in the supercomputing arena. Their clustering systems while complete just arent utilized by a signifigant percentage of supercomputers.

Storm

Almost Forgot

[Comatose51]

I know about Open Office and have plans to test it out. However, there are a number of Excel plugins that we use so any Excel replacement must also work with those.

Re:Commodity HW, customizable code - win/win

[Master of Transhuman]

Then it isn't done on Windows either. And never will be.

But the fact of the matter is that "non-commodity" hardware is being replaced every day in corporations by commodity hardware and, as long as the SYSTEM design is right, companies see two to ten times better performance at one-half to one-tenth the cost.

By system design, I mean you ALLOW for the lessened reliability of commodity hardware by appropriate failover and backup design. Since the commodity hardware is still much less in cost than proprietary stuff, there's room for ensuring reliability and still saving money.

Re:Not Seeing It

[div_2n]

Until Excel or an equivalent like Excel runs on Linux

That's been a reality for a long time now.

www.codeweavers.com

Re:Not Seeing It

[Master of Transhuman]

Another post that agrees with my main point: until Linux has enterprise class applications that work together, its adoption by corporations will be slowed. It will happen, since the frameworks are there to build enterprise class apps. It just needs more open source developers to build the apps.

In other words, somebody needs to build an app that Bloomberg will use rather than use Windows.

Somebody needs to build plugins for OpenOffice's spreadsheet that does what Excel plugins do.

Once that is done, Linux will bury Windows.

This isn't a problem, it's a huge opportunity for open source developers to make money developing and supporting the enterprise via open source.

Re:I tried this this weekend....

[xMilkmanDanx]

I haven't been here that long (yeah yeah, I must be new here) but I've seen this exact same post a couple times before. Standard troll and lots of people bite.

The original poster, if not a total liar, was a moron to switch 7 machines at once without a trial on one of them. I have a feeling, it's more of a BS troll than anything that someone (or several people) just won't let die.