Slashdot Mirror
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."
The coders and engineers working for finance (Wall St. especially) are some of the best in the world and the best salaries in the world.
They obv. know what they're doing and have chosen Lunix.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The techs can look over the code, tweak where needed, and run it on commodity hardware at a big upfront savings. The *ix heritage means they're already well up on running the OS and can port over their apps with little effort. What's not to like?
Yes, running COBOL applications on Linux... at least they didn't try to convert to EMACS
_
Bring it back!
I'd say it's rather the fact that it's easier to use Linux to replace those UNIX in such uniform environments - clients are mostly browsers or terminals, clients don't need any special features (as long as they can connect), and servers/apps were UNIX-based anyway, so it really is easy to switch and doesn't matter to the IT guys - as long as it is cheap, it works, and can do what they want, they don't care what it is.
If Websphere, Weblogic, Oracle and DB2 supported BSD, it could have as well been BSD. I don't think they're Linux funs or anything like that. Business as usual.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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.
Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
Wow, now that is creative hiring! What do the support stag's do, exactly?
It's not surprising that Linux is only making inroads in the server market; it is simply not user friendly in the way that most computer users define that concept. In addition, most of the Linux applications out there, regardless of what all the tech-savvy geeks here say, are difficult for most computer users to install. The Linux community's resistance to GUI installers and GUIs in general is also a major block. The Linux market share will grow beyond server when Linux geeks start to understand that not everyone wants to know the details of how a computer and OS work.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
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?
2. What do the support stag's do, exactly? They "service" the colonels...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
This is one of many *recent* articles with the same theme: Linux has/is making headway in the server room but it hasn't broken out into the desktop...
That Linux is now a major player in the server room has been OLD news for two or three years. What these articles imply is that Linux hasn't/won't make the leap onto the corporate desktop. Just like the arguments several years ago against Linux being a major player in the server room, these articles under estimate the effect of uncounted, free downloads, and the fact that a single copy can be used on many PCs. The Linux desktops where I work have not been included on anyone's count, and I doubt if our circumstance is not unusual. They also over estimate the need for "paid support".
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
If financial institution think it's a better solution, sortof cut MS's TCO argument down..... these are the guys that should know best (should and do being two different things).
I'm definitely not seeing it at my company, which is a hedge fund. Maybe it's because I work at a hedge fund that things and the rules are different than the rest of the financial market. But the key issue for us isn't cost. It is reliability. We cannot tolerate downtime at all. The more data we can get continuously, the better we are. Linux is reliable and so is Windows if you have good administrators.
What's pegging us to Windows are our desktops. Until Excel or an equivalent like Excel runs on Linux, this won't happen. Does Bloomberg run on Linux? Until then, the desktops will stay Windows. So this leads to the servers staying Windows. From our experience, Windows plays better with Windows. MS products don't like to play nice with other companies' products. So our domain controllers, etc. are all Windows. I have to admit, our AD works fine and so do most of our Windows servers. Windows XP on our workstation leaves much room for improvement but Linux isn't an alternative on the desktops. It's not Linux itself but third party software that's making us stay on Windows XP.
I've been trying to push Linux since I started and haven't made too much progress and I can understand why. Windows works for us. Why undertake the risk of a major overhaul, especially when we know Microsoft products don't like to play nice with non-MS products? We have the money to stay with MS. However, I am happy to say that open source software is making progress. We're in the process of switching to Cacti to monitor our servers. Firefox has caught on with some of our uses and traders (they love tabbed browsing). I've seen a trader reading a book on R (OSS stats software)
EvilCON - Made Famous by
There goes all my plans of exploiting their MS-based "solutions" to engage in stock manipulation and diversion of corporate funds!
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
Ha!
I knew I'd read this somewhere before!
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.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Hah. I knew they used Linux on USS Enterprise. It was just too cool to be anything else.
Oh wait. You mean that enterprise....
While I switched people over to Linux with the same experience, the non-complainers tend to be newbs or people who really only do webbrowsing/IM or another set of limited functions.
I've run into problems with more advanced people who could and should be able to figure out Linux on their own but don't bother and start complaining when they can't install certain software they are used to on Windows and yet don't want to learn the *nix equivalent.
It's just that I've been hearing too many glowing switch-over stories lately and to be sure, with distros like Ubuntu, linux is easier than ever. But again, in my experience and as counter-intuitive as it seems, the total newbs to computers are easier to nab than the people who've been doing Windows for a few years.
The financial market had been a huge buyer of Sun and IBM midrange equipment. While I don't see some brokerage going out and buying a pallet of white box systems at the local flea market, the cost of even high-end x86 equipment is markedly lower than what they've been accustomed to.
There was a nice talk about this at Debconf last week in Finland. About writing enterprise ready software , it was one of the SkoleLinux developers (pere). And even though School != enterprise there are some valid point about how to make thing work for large organizations.
Great talks.
Funny, I currently support an office FULL of 400mhz k6-II's with 128-384mb of ram, and they all run flawlessly. I call bullshit.
OpenVMS works on computers the size of gymnasiums. OpenBSD doesn't even officially have SMP support yet. That's why.
And actually, I'm pretty sure that OpenVMS is still more secure than OpenBSD. To the best of my knowledge, OpenBSD's strong points are preventing incidents and logging them, but OpenVMS has a lot more mature stuff for forensics and recovery, as well as more active security countermeasures. It's a weird OS.
If they can keep the same statistical level of reliability by running a pair of Dell Deminsions running Linux and at a lower cost, would you pass the company on your search for investment managers?
What if they charged you 6 bucks a trade instead of 7?
If Linux enables you do do this, to save money by taking advantage of the current weak computer prices while maintaining a quality setup, why the heck not?
Get your linux license framed and mounted on the wall so potential customers can see you're not a thief.
**running win2k
There is a marked strengthening in competition -- weakening in price -- in the financial services industry, especially in trading where fidelity and prudential want priority trades for a penny a share or less.
The money spent to lower these prices isn't going to come out of the human resources end, because how are you going to execute increasing trading volume with appropriate speed? Where is it going to come from, buying cheaper chairs?
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that IT budgets on Wall Street will suffer as a result of competition within the industry.
Linux is good on the server. No doubt.
But most users don't need or want a server on their desktop.
Until a Linux distro strips the Linux server off the Linux desktop we will continue to have a geeks system being touted as desktop ready. Which is ridiculous.
There are a lot of other step, but none of it can really be taken seriously until companies/foundations really decide what kind of operating system it is they are working on.
You can't be everything to everyone.
Quack, quack.
In the financial market, companies spend big money for Linux support -- usually more than Windows' licensing costs. In either case, they're running software that costs $10K+ per server, so the OS cost is immaterial.
The move to Linux is finance was driven by cheaper hardware, not freebie versions of Linux. Despite your little fairytale about "Joe Geek", Linux is doing phenomonal in the cost-insensitive Enterprise market, but Windows still rules the tight-wallet SMB space.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Unfortunately, I'd have to guess the client goes with Windows most of the time, because most people are idiots. At the very least, most of them have never heard of Linux. Of course, if you just tell the client you can do it for less without specifying the OS, this would work.
I'd certainly hope the client was smart enough to go with Linux (that's the sort of client I want), but I have no confidence.
But I've read plenty of stories like this, where a Windows VAR quotes X thousands and a Linux VAR quotes X thousands LESS. It's easy to do with Linux. One Linux guy quoted twenty grand against a Windows guy who quoted sixty grand. Not hard for a client to make that choice.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Back when I worked for VA I remember going to Linux World in New York and just replaced their entire back trading network from VAX to a huge commodity cluster running Linux. That was back when VA still sold hardware and VA sold them the cluster. Linux isn't being installed on the desktops at these firms, but huge linux clusters to facilitate and speed trading.
Thalasar
The ONLY thing preventing Linux from "consuming" the consumers market is education.
Most people simply have never heard of Linux or even the concept of a free operating system.
They use the OS that came with their computer; they learned the OS that came with their FIRST computer or their first corporate job.
That simple.
Once somebody either makes a Linux distro that is IDENTICAL to Windows (unlikely, although Xandros gets close) OR figures out how to make Linux a household word AND figures out how to make it EASY to learn Linux for the average user, Linux will bury Windows on the desktop for home users.
For corporate users, it will be much easier since a corporate worker will use what the corporation tells them to use. And as I've said before, the ONLY thing holding back Linux in corporations is the lack of enterprise class applications (other than the big ones like SAP and Oracle) and the perceived cost of "training" (in quotes because corporations NEVER do any real training.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Two different types of security here. The first is code security - minimizing overflows and code auditing. OpenBSD excells there; it's perfect for set and forget applications. The other type of security has to deal with things like auditing and access control lists, which is something that OpenBSD doesn't have, but is available to Linux in the form of the NSA-spearheaded SELinux project. Additionally, Linux can provide many of the code-based security capabilities OpenBSD provides through the grsecurity system. Thus, for this purpose, OpenBSD is much less secure in the long run.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
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.
I am not in anyway affiliated with Max Cannon
if you reply to a troll with a dupe post and get modded up.
I've seen the GP troll and the Parent post already. Probably a quick search would turn the previous posts up quickly.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Just for the record--though not entirely to the point, perhaps--one correction: OpenBSD supports SMP on i386 and amd64. Granted, it's only done so since 3.6. Supposedly work is ongoing to support SMP on SPARC and (I believe) PPC.
Another time traveller?
Linux fonts have been fixed many years ago. You should at least install a new version of Linux before complaining about it.
Oh well, what the hell...
At this point the choices are RedHat Enterprise (RHEL) and SuSE (SLES). Both products are from fine companies, come with infrequent releases, semi-regular updates, and support just like the main line UNIX operating systems.
Customers tend toward the bright side, many with UNIX experience and some with Linux too. Expectation can be that we would see something that is supported as "enterprise" yet patched with lightning speed as many products you find in Open Source. Expectation that any and all hardware in the "enterprise" realm is well supported, tested, and works just as it expected be in (for example) a Sparc archictecture system.
Who knows what happy medium is? It is not reasonable for a vendor to provide enterprise class support for something that gets patched overnight on a regular basis. Yet some customers expect both.
Nice bug zapping.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
It's sad that you are such an expert in linux, but can't figure out how to disable shit you don't need in windows. Let's start with the easiest, right click my computer: Properties.
Advanced tab, Performance: Settings button.
Click Adjust for best performance.
If it's still slow perhaps you should try something faster than a p200 with 128mb of ram because anything much quicker than that has been more than fast enough in my experience.
then again, the windows machines you use probably aren't really slow at all, you just feel the need to hop on the slashdot bandwagon where XP requires a minimum of 3ghz P4 with 2gb of ram and it still BSOD's every 30 minutes *right*
Until a Linux distro strips the Linux server off the Linux desktop we will continue to have a geeks system being touted as desktop ready. Which is ridiculous.
I don't think it makes much sense to arbitrarily say one can't be the other. If I only install client apps, it's a desktop. If I install server apps, it's a server. If I install both, then it's a geek's machine. My dad is busily playing games (card/tile games mostly), surfing the web and checking email (webmail) from my linux machine. That's what he does from the Windows machine too. It is no more or less a desktop if it is running a bunch of daemons he never sees or knows about.
I'll give you that there are a lot of things about the linux desktop I would like to improve. But removing the linux server won't do anything to change that. Gnome/KDE live in a completely different world than Apache etc. already. The only ones who haven't chosen a "camp" are most of the distros, and it would make no sense. Sure, they could split themselves in half and call themselves "Foobar desktop" and "Foobar server", but the difference wouldn't be bigger than today where you pick one of two icons in the installer. Everybody that is actually writing the software know which side they belong to already.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Now, I'm 180 degrees from you on this point. I think Linux is perfect for "parents" (i.e., those who could care less about computing, and just want to use them. For instance, my mom is terrified anytime she uses my dad's computer to check her email, to the point that she's phoned me about some otherwise straightforward items, but when she's using her own system (an old system with Mepis), she's much more relaxed about it. Yes, part of this is that if she messes up dad's computer, she'll have to listen to him, but mostly, she knows she can explore and do things with Linux, and as a normal user, cannot mess up the system too badly.
More importantly, the Linux system has a ton of software, whereas my dad's has a minimal amount (MS Office, Act!, a couple super cheesy things, etc.) In essense, she can "play" with things on the Linux system that she would never be able to afford on a MS OS.
So, despite the fact that Linux is more difficult to understand fully (it's a much larger and varied system), for those who barely understand the concept of "copy/paste", Linux is a lot more interesting and comforting. After three years, my mom's almost annoying when she brags about how her system isn't taken down when her friend's get infected.
That's just my experience, though.
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
You didn't get the memo? US governmental branches that don't show an increase in necessary funding will lose the potential for that funding in the future. Therefore, by using "gg" in place of "ff", certain divisions of the government have secured a 7% increase in funding for next year. :)
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
Yeah we don't need drivers. We don't need access to the video card or the motherboard or the network card (not that you'll ever need that in a server). It'll cause stability problems.
It's sad that you are such an expert in MS Windows, but don't know anything about the rest of the IT multiverse. Let's start with the easiest, click on "control panel" in your Linux GUI.
:)
Disable the tremendous amount of eyecandy available for your system, as per your taste.
If it's slower, even on your p200 with 128mb ram, disable a few unneeded kernel modules. If that's not enough, pop into kernel configuration, and alter the kernel as needed. This is a little more complicated, but pretty easy, especially in light of the modern tools available for doing so. At least when you make the changes, you understand what you are changing, as compared to altering obscure registry settings in windows, handed down from the Redmond priesthood and it's third party bishops.
Then again, the Linux machines you use probably aren't slow at all, you just have more powerful applications and flexiblity at your fingertips than most of the MS Windows users on the Slashdot MS bandwagon.
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
I defer to HermanAB, with one exception. Personally, I think Linux fonts are much nicer than those available for Windows. Although the Windows fonts have seniority, and therefore have garnered a certain following and acceptance as "normal", the fonts available for Linux do not seem to suffer the same problems when it comes to alterations and conversions to other media.
Naturally, that's a matter of personal preference, but the various reports and ad fluff we'd provided have received less complaints in the last couple years, since the drive to produce better fonts on FOSS systems. (Linux and many of the BSDs that share the ability to use Linux-originated font systems.)
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
>>Right now the only implementation of unix that is ready to go for your regular tom, dick and jane users is OS X. Until linux can get itself into a form like that, your general users won't be able to do a god damn thing in it.
:)
You might be right, but that means little, as the idea is to advance the systems, not copy somebody else's ideas. Besides, what's the fun in imitating? The advantage Linux has is that some groups ("distros") can imitate, while others can advance.
Lumping all of these together is ignorance, not as bad, but comparable with, 1930's genetic superiority.
In other words, wake up folks!
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
After all, the armies of economists and financial gurus employed in the financial sector whose job it is to try to figure out how to more-cheaply run their companies can't be *totally* wrong... :-)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Linux distribution cost time and money to produce.
They also exert *some* influence on the software projects they choose to include or to fund.
Ok so far?
Linux projects choose to include and fund...
1) A complete CLI environment, that means supporting, bug-hunt/fixing, managing and updating as necessary.
2) A complete IOS. This is related to the other, but distinct enough.
3) A mind-blowing number for possible configurations of webserver. That includes support, updates and management for the oodles of wonderful Linux ready server packages.
4) A graphics ready workstation. X! X apps, games, gui configuration utilities. All sorts of stuff.
5) Of course we've moved WAY beyond CDE and its clumsy ilk! So we need what? At least two COMPLETE UI's subsystems? Gawd, and then we'd better throw in a bunch of applications designed specifically around Gnome or KDE to really complicate things!
There was a time when Linux distro's really needed to justify their lack of commercial software buy adding HEAPs of OSS ware.
Of course that time has past.
As a Linux user what I'd like to see is a Linux distro that can seriously focus on whatever its primary objective it.
I want my server to be solid, if it has a GUI I'd like to to be solely focused on the task I've installed the system to complete.
Likewise, if I'm going to install a desktop distro on my wifes machine it sure as hell had better know what it is supposed to do, and do it reliably. Right now there is no such distro. My wife did use Linux, for about 3 years. But its still a patchwork system. Distro's aren't designed to be GUI only and things regularly creep up that require you have a much more through understanding of the system internals then is really acceptable in this day and age. Its 2005.
My work predicates I will always have the need to use a hybrid desktop/CLI/IOS operating system and for that I'm very thankful to have Linux to use. But I have no doubt that there will always be a Gentoo or Debian thats ready to suite my needs.
What I take issue with is distro's/fan bois touting Linux as the mature desktop operating system, it so clearly isn't. Its adequate. No more. And for most of use who have been using it over the years that seems like leaps and bounds. But its still got a ways to go before we are really doing anyone any favors by pretending its really for the masses.
Quack, quack.
Linux is very close to becoming mainstream desktop OS. Linux is still lacking a bit in the help, install and education areas..... Linux still needs a better help system. No users consumer user wants to click on a menu item and end up at a command prompt with the man pages for help. Linux also needs a easier install. It would be most helpful if there was knoppix type of boot for the other distros. Linux also needs a better books that are more suited for learning and classroom curriculm. The Oreilly books are helpful, but they are more suited to people that already know Linux.
when ppl espically reviewrs claim that businesses migrate to Linux to cut down costs.
I do not belive this is true.
I have seen lots of businesses where financing IT was not an issue of money (within reasonable limits ofcorse), and they just migrate to Linux for the speed, or the stability, and in some cases belive it or not, because some apps will run better on Linux than any other platform.
Claiming that Linux is cheaper is a myth, it is NOT cheaper, where I work we spend millions of $'s on Linux clusters, support from RH, Novell, IBM. So linux is not cheaper, it is simply a BETTER option.....at least most of the cases.
Besides, which idiot will risk his business going down for an IT mistake just beucase it is cheaper..
The lunatic is in my head
As far as switching people over to Linux, to me the best candidates are those at the very top and at the very bottom of the computer user spectrum.
Its great for those that think that "computers are magical boxes" and who can't install Windows software. These people just want a web browser, an email program and some office software. Desktop Linux works great for them because they won't have to fight viruses and spyware -a battle they would lose in Windowsland (this assumes they buy a PC with Linspire or someone sets up Linux for them). Its also great for super nerds that want a Unix at home.
All of the people in the middle (gamers, people big into webcam chatting, people with lots of third party peripherals, etc.) are usually not happy with Linux. Basically if you can can keep spyware off your machine but touching the registry scares you, then Linux is probably not ready for your desktop. Its been ready for mine for more than a year.
Open Source Sushi
Working as an architect for one of the biggest banks of Switzerland I can say that we do not embrace Linux. Yes, every two years we are looking into the market and make a new positioning of Linux but so far we could not come up with a business case for the introduction of Linux. /. after all, we speak about replacing the Unix servers with Linux. The desktop was never even considered. All the software we developed inhouse is J2EE based so it would be easy to change. ;-), is the lack of monitoring software. The products we set as our standard solutions are not available on Linux.
Technically, this is
The main obstacle, beside the lack of a financial benefit
Sorry, statements claiming the financial industry is heading towards Linux are wishfull thinking. Ok, everybody has a linux server somewhere (well our whole trading platform runs on Linux) but that is nothing towards "embracing" Linux.