×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

505 comments

Calculus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236735)

And Final Fantasy, mixed with some karate make a perfect mix.

Wall Street Embraces Linux? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236887)

More like CmdrTaco embraces little boys whilst John Kats ass-rapes them.

FAGGOTS

This is good news (-1, Troll)

Sunda666 (146299) | about 12 years ago | (#3236750)

Now we can see how linux performs in such an environment. I bet it will do much better without having to coexist with windoze ;-)

First Post Cereal! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236753)

First Cereal Post! Me want Honey Comb!

Trolls suck.

Unix? (-1, Offtopic)

groman (535485) | about 12 years ago | (#3236755)

Maybe off topic, but what's the story with the original Unix? Where did it go? Does AT&T(or whomever) still own it? and more importantly, does it run Gnome?(snicker)

Not the only one. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236758)

I work at a wall street not mentioned in the article, and there's linux floating around here as well.

Do you work at Wall St. or on Wall St.? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236893)

Hey, are you the crack whore that keeps soliciting me for sex? Close your legs, I don't want none of that nappy dugout. I'd rather hump a drain pipe than you.

correction taco... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236763)

Linux threatening Unix
(emphasis me)

I think you meant "Windows"

Re:correction taco... (4, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 12 years ago | (#3236866)

Nope, there's no correction necessary. Linux hasn't done much displacing Windows, but it has done worlds getting rid of Big Iron that costs 3x as much to set up. And what does that mean?

Linux is killing Big Iron. It's hurting Sun in particular. People started running Linux so they could get UNIX-like functionality and performance on their cheap Intel boxes. Whether it has reached that point of being as good as Solaris/AIX/IRIX is debatable, but the fact is people are dumping their UNIX boxes for cheap x86 boxes running Linux.

What does that mean for the bigger picture? Say goodbye to high-performance computing outside the Intel-compatible world. PA-RISC? Dead. Alpha? Dead. MIPS? Not even close to competing anymore. SPARC? Future questionable. PowerPC? It's an okay chip, but the outdated I/O on Apple machines negates any (debatable in the first place) performance advantage it might have.

What might seem good at first (more Linux everywhere) is bad for the future of high-performance computing.

Linux seems to be helping shore up Intel's hardware monopoly, as well as lengthening the lifespan of the decrepit x86 architecture.

correction ac (1)

ThomasXSteel (545884) | about 12 years ago | (#3236917)

Read the article, linux is threatening commercial Unix. Particularly Solaris.

The article just shows that the (previously theoretical) threat is real. The more linux evolves for datacenter usage (high availability, better process/thread model, hotswap CPU...), the more it will replace commercial unix on serious ($1MM+) installations. IBM knows this, Sun is realizing this.

Microsoft is scared shitless of this, as they have been planning on replacing unix on the big iron for some time.

--TSX

Sell, sell, sell! (-1)

October_30th (531777) | about 12 years ago | (#3236764)

Merrill Lyrnch switching to Linux

Ah... I am glad that Merrill Lynch doesn't control any of my investments.

Watch the stocks of ML drop with this decision.

Mental image: (5, Funny)

RasputinAXP (12807) | about 12 years ago | (#3236767)

CSFB's Yatko was just as direct. "We don't treat Linux as a toy. We've got real business problems that we need to solve."
I've all of a sudden got this mental picture of a little squeaky Tux toy. You know, the ones that your dog would just LOVE to chew on for a while before swallowing them.

GPL? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236768)

Doesn't this violate the GPL?

3rd.

Linux not really "free"? (2, Interesting)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | about 12 years ago | (#3236772)

Quoth the column:

Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?

"Some of these things make us very uncomfortable," says Carey, who is trying to hammer out the details.


I don't understand how Linux could be much more "free". Maybe Forbes has a different definition of "free" than the rest of us?

Re:Linux not really "free"? (1)

ShadeEagle (153172) | about 12 years ago | (#3236794)

Well, maybe they're thinking about specific distros like Red Hat, mentioned in the article.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (0)

mobets (101759) | about 12 years ago | (#3236795)

Just because we can download and install it for free doesn't mean Red Hat is going to support it for free. The licensing agreements probobly have more to do with service than the actual software.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (-1)

returnofthe_spork (552824) | about 12 years ago | (#3236806)

Linux is released under the GPL, it is not free. FreeBSD is truly free, although it is dying. Get with the program.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236808)

Yeah, its called TCO dickhead. Look it up some time.

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled.

Time to switch IPs.... DONE! Suckers.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (3, Insightful)

Kevbo (3514) | about 12 years ago | (#3236811)

Perhaps that's what they mean by "Even more important, who is accountable?" I am guessing that the costs are support costs to (ostensibly) RedHat, so that they can, indeed, call someone when it breaks.

Seems to me this article wasn't very well written, you have to read between the lines a lot. I'd like to know more about how they're implementing it: distribution, updates, standard image, etc

Re:Linux not really "free"? (4, Insightful)

cavemanf16 (303184) | about 12 years ago | (#3236934)

I read Forbes all the time. I have a subscription to it, after all. Basically, understand that every part of a business is considered an asset, so logically, software is an asset of a company. So like the previous guy said, when Forbes talks about Linux not being "free," they mean that just like any software, there are add-ons, customizations, and DBA's that all need to be purchased and hired to implement and support the software, be it Linux or otherwise. What's notable is that Merril Lynch must have found it much more cost effective to switch from their previous software to Linux for certain tasks. Considering they are a top securities firm, I'm sure the money factor was analyzed much more closely and accurately than the "principal of the thing" or "useability" would have been in a more IT related company.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (3, Funny)

EnVisiCrypt (178985) | about 12 years ago | (#3236829)

Quoth JWZ: Linux is only free if your time isn't worth anything...

Damn those pesky business men and the concept of time equalling money. Damn them all.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (5, Funny)

Anonymous DWord (466154) | about 12 years ago | (#3236874)

I hate that fucking quotation. If I never heard it again, it would be too soon. It's not like I boot into Windows, say "Computer, write the year-end fiscal report," and go golfing for the afternoon.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (1)

Quixadhal (45024) | about 12 years ago | (#3236899)

Yup, and I'd rather have my employees spending my time fixing configuration issues and updating packages to patch newly discovered security holes.... as opposed to sitting on hold to Redmond, wondering how many times they'll be asked to check the power cord and repeat their license key.

Either way, we're down.. but at least my people would LEARN something with linux and hopefully have less downtime in the future because of it.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (1)

markt4 (84886) | about 12 years ago | (#3236968)

Damn those pesky business men and the concept of time equalling money. Damn them all.

This actually explains PHBs:

time = money
knowledge = power
work = power * time
work = knowledge * money

The less you know, the more money you get for the same amount of work.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (1)

petis (139263) | about 12 years ago | (#3236830)

I guess he is refering to the cost of implementing a large scale linux based solution. (When these guys talk about "free" they are usually talking about the beer cost, if not otherwise stated).

And I'm quite sure that RH will not do this for "free". Congrats to them!

This is Forbes you are reading. (2)

sulli (195030) | about 12 years ago | (#3236831)

Not free as in beer, free as in free market, ergo free as in pay. Weird, I know, but it makes sense if you're a Capitalist Tool.

Re:This is Forbes you are reading. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236888)

I have Malcom Forbe's Capitalist Tool right next to my toilet!!!


-- a homosexual necrophiliac grave robber, somewhere in Conneticut

Re:Linux not really "free"? (1)

gerbache (540848) | about 12 years ago | (#3236837)

You can get it for free, and use it, but a big company is not going to risk doing this sort of thing. They're going to require the support that a company like Red Hat will give them as paying customers, especially when it comes to the major servers. Besides, they're all worried about the possibility of lawsuits and intellictual property infringements, so they would really like to have another company they can push the blame onto if something goes wrong. Linux is only really free for small time uses right now that do not require support and do not stand a chance of being audited or sued.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (3, Interesting)

Gehenna_Gehenna (207096) | about 12 years ago | (#3236840)

Investment banks think like this

$$$$$$+$$$$$-$$$$$=$$$$

LInux is NOT free as in 0$ (beer)

They are free as in Red Hat + Effort & $ = Merril Lynch Linux. Or Big Money Linux. Or I Am Free To Customise The Code Any Damn Way I Want To Because the Code Is Free As In Speech Linux.Good Move ML. I hope to see the other big firms follow suite.

You have to consider other cost (1, Insightful)

taya0001 (457928) | about 12 years ago | (#3236907)

Migrating to linux can become expensive when you consider the labor costs involved. MCSE are cheap as st|t. You cant cross the street without bumping into someone that is a MCSE. Im sure that their are quite a bit fewer Linux geeks in the professional feild and that might make it a little harder on buisness.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (2)

Perdo (151843) | about 12 years ago | (#3236916)

Linux is free (as in beer) if your time is worth nothing. Since we can assume Merril Lynch has to pay someone to install, configure and administer their Linux boxes, they will have to pay for someone's time. If Linux is easier to administer that the systems they are replacing, they will save money. If Linux is difficult to work with, it will cost them more money than the alternatives.

This, I belive is as good an arguement as any for improving the user interface of Linux. We are not trying to make Linux a good choice for dumb administrators, we are trying to lower the intellectual barrier to entry for adoption of Linux wherever it could be used, which is anywhere, as far as flexibility of the OS is concerned.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (2)

MeNeXT (200840) | about 12 years ago | (#3236977)

...lower the intellectual barrier to entry ...


Are we talking about servers or desktops? In the case of desktops I would agree in the case of servers I beleive it would be more expensive to clean up than to do it right the first time.

Re:Linux not really "free"? (3, Offtopic)

swillden (191260) | about 12 years ago | (#3236927)

This is definitely weird. Okay, so Linux is not free as in zero cost, because everything has a cost of ownership. Even with closed source software, license fees are only the beginning.

But, the column explicitly mentions "large-scale licensing agreements". Huh? Support agreements, sure, but licensing? The software is already available under a very large-scale licensing agreement: the GNU General Public License.

I'm confused.

This is cool (0)

Rock 'N' Troll (566273) | about 12 years ago | (#3236779)

It's great that people finally learn how to use Linux. The OS is so hard to learn that it's taken these people all the 3 years Linux has been around to just get the basics.

(Remember learning Windows in 2 hours?)

Yeah, poop on you too!

MS embraces Linux... (-1)

returnofthe_spork (552824) | about 12 years ago | (#3236782)

...finally rids the world of that piece of shit. Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet. Oh well, I can wait a few more years.

Ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236784)

A bunch of brokers in $5000 suits gangbanging an inflatable penguin isn't exactly "embracing linux" now is it?

Perfect Line (1)

DohDamit (549317) | about 12 years ago | (#3236787)


CSFB's Yatko was just as direct. "We don't treat Linux as a toy. We've got real business problems that we need to solve."


This is what you tell your boss, the next time you get the chance to pitch "the alternative".

Slashdotted already.. (0)

Ophidian P. Jones (466787) | about 12 years ago | (#3236789)

Here's the article.

Wall Street Embraces Linux
Lisa DiCarlo, 03.27.02, 10:50 AM ET

NEW YORK - Rick Carey has staked his reputation and his job on a project that he concedes is risky--but with potentially huge returns. He is the person in charge of a top-down implementation of Linux software at Merrill Lynch.

Merrill (nyse: MER - news - people) is one of many Wall Street brokerages doing a large-scale Linux deployment in an effort to cut their costs and boost revenue. Indeed, these banks have had a very tough year: Merrill's sales declined more than 10%, to $38.7 billion last year, and profits dried up to 56 cents per share, from $4.06 in 2000. The company laid off 9,000 employees last year to reduce compensation expenses.

More on Red Hat Software
Tear Sheet

Forbes 500s

Merrill and others talked about their Linux plans at an event hosted by Red Hat Software (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people) in New York Tuesday night. Red Hat is a leading Linux distributor but is experiencing no shortage of pain itself. Sales for fiscal 2002 ended Feb. 28 fell to $86.8 million, from $103 million. Analysts polled by First Call/Thomson Financial are expecting the company to break even in the May and August quarters.

Merrill's plans, and others like it, are very significant because they are the first companywide--rather than departmental--Linux implementations. While not without risk, this lends an enormous amount of credence to the argument that Linux can be used in place of more established technologies like Unix.

Second, it also shows that Linux does in fact threaten Unix. Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people), the leading Unix provider, has only recently communicated what can be construed as a semi-comprehensive Linux strategy--perhaps prodded by customers like Merrill.

"We are telling all of our vendors that they need to have some kind of Linux strategy," says Carey, chief technology architect at Merrill. "We are hearing that consistently from everyone on Wall Street."

Credit Suisse First Boston, which has been working with Linux since late 2000, has replaced some of its Unix technology.

"Initially it was about cost savings but it has been a benefit to the business because we're profiting from being more flexible," says Steve Yatko, chief technology officer of securities IT at CSFB. "Our trading volume has increased [twenty-fold], and our customers are seeing better pricing. And things that used to take days [like installing applications and doing management tasks] now take minutes."

Indeed, one of the big benefits that Carey sees is that Merrill can write an application once and then deploy it with minimal work on mainframes, minicomputers, desktops, laptops and handhelds--whether it be on Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people) hardware or something else.

This contrasts with Unix in that developers write software for every version of Unix, including for tools and patches. This approach, says Carey, is time-consuming and expensive. If a Unix project doesn't work out for some reason, the technology is rarely transferable to another project.

"When I have proprietary hardware and proprietary software, I have sunk costs into that project that I can't recover," says Carey, adding that commodity technologies are more easily transferable. "Unix took Wall Street fifteen years to master. Nobody has time for that."

But there are risks in putting so much behind Linux. For starters, there are legal implications. Does anybody own the intellectual property of the "open-source" software? How exposed are companies to patent violation?

Even more important, who is accountable? Linux is an amalgamation of the input of many companies and individual software engineers. So whom do you call when it breaks? Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?

"Some of these things make us very uncomfortable," says Carey, who is trying to hammer out the details.

But he is comfortable predicting that Merrill's investments thus far--which he won't disclose--will be accretive this year. If it works out the way he hopes, Merrill could be savings tens of millions of dollars annually within three to five years.

The support from Wall Street firms comes as Red Hat introduced software called Advanced Server, which was endorsed by leaders like Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people), IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people), Dell Computer (nasdaq: DELL - news - people), Compaq Computer (nyse: CPQ - news - people) and Veritas Software (nasdaq: VRTS - news - people). But despite the thumbs-up, Linux isn't ready for life-and-death situations.

"Would I put an air traffic control system on Linux right now? No," says Carey. "But can it get there within five years? Absolutely."

CSFB's Yatko was just as direct. "We don't treat Linux as a toy. We've got real business problems that we need to solve."

Karma whoring cock sucking cunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236832)

that is all.

Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (2, Insightful)

A Commentor (459578) | about 12 years ago | (#3236792)

"Would I put an air traffic control system on Linux right now? No," says Carey.
"But can it get there within five years? Absolutely."

I know I would feel safer if the air traffic control is on Linux rather than any version of Windows...

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (1)

Dionysus (12737) | about 12 years ago | (#3236850)

Really? And what will happen if you throw enough planes in the air? Will Linux be able to handle it or will we start seeing kernel panicks?

And Linux does crash. Had one last week on the server here (Linux 2.4.17)

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (2)

Gehenna_Gehenna (207096) | about 12 years ago | (#3236876)

Everyting crashes. Eventually. I think the point is that on a cost-per-unit basis Linux chrashes les per hour per dollar than most other OS's.

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236883)

Try running a stable kernel instead of a development kernel on your production boxes next time. Newbie linux admins are so stupid.

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (1)

Just Another Perl Ha (7483) | about 12 years ago | (#3236915)

...as opposed to the current air traffic control systems which are held together with spit and bailing-wire (and tend to crash way more often than I am comfortable thinking about).

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (2)

cjpez (148000) | about 12 years ago | (#3236853)

And I'd feel safer having some sort of reliable mainframe or embedded system running air traffic control than Linux. Don't get me wrong; I love Linux and all that, but I'm rather glad that ATC systems are largely mainframe-based still. (I could be wrong about that, I suppose.)

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236877)

Yup your wrong unix based work stations .... sun ultra 5's for the display's and the heavy duty servers for radar and flight plan processing.

A few programs us Dec alpha's but for the most part its sun

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (1)

qwerpoiu (532823) | about 12 years ago | (#3236854)

From: Osama bin Laden To: Flight 1749 Subject: I send to this file to get your advice

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236900)

If only I had mod points. I don't know why, I just feel that this post deserves being moderated up. Hmmmm.

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236855)

I actually help design many of the world's largest ATC (air traffic control systems) and I would not feel safe flying on systems built on top of linux. We've tested with it and it hasn't been up to snuff. Not to mention with Sun and Dec we have someone to call when things are going wrong.

as i said to a co-worker yesterday I love linux but I wouldn't fly on it.

FYI NO atc systems are designed on or for windows ... only unix baby.

insighful? more like COCK SUCKING CUNT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236856)

that is all.

This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (3, Insightful)

tempest303 (259600) | about 12 years ago | (#3236864)

I know I would feel safer if the air traffic control is on Linux rather than any version of Windows...

God yes. On the other hand, even as a GPL bigot and Linux zealot, I wouldn't want Linux running air traffic control stuff either, not yet anyhow. This is what QNX, et al, were *made* for.

On the other hand, who knows? One of the great things about Linux is that in a few years it may just be good enough for air traffic control, etc.

Re:Not safe enough for Air Traffic Control??? (1)

jsprat (442568) | about 12 years ago | (#3236941)

Here [v4c23.net] is a 'true to life' example of Air Traffic Control on Windows (Real Player).

Oh Man!!! (1, Insightful)

cscx (541332) | about 12 years ago | (#3236793)

Easy way to earn Karma:

I'm going to submit a story every time some company installs Linux! Because, it's evidently front page material, and people must care a lot! I can just imagine some Linux zealot cracking open a bottle of champage-nya now that there's one more on the band wagon!

Short version: Yeah, companies are installing Linux. Woo-fucking-hoo. Do we have to know about every one?

Re:Oh Man!!! (2)

AnalogBoy (51094) | about 12 years ago | (#3236827)

Just think about how many stories slashdot would have to deal with if they posted a story each and every time a company phased out linux, replaced their linux systems with a commercial UNIX, or went to windows?

GOOD POINT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236911)

that is all...

Re:Oh Man!!! (1)

tweek (18111) | about 12 years ago | (#3236836)

Actually this is a bit more important than the typical story.

Just like the Burlington Coat Factory move, this is a COMPANY WIDE move, not departmental in nature.

It's not big news in the typical "our company is merging with another and we have integration headaches".

It's more like "we have 1000's of Sun boxen doing various and assundry and we're about to stick in a bootable redhat for sparc cd on each one."

Well not exactly but you get the point.

Re: Oh Man!!! (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 12 years ago | (#3236875)


> Easy way to earn Karma:

> I'm going to submit a story every time some company installs Linux! Because, it's evidently front page material, and people must care a lot! I can just imagine some Linux zealot cracking open a bottle of champage-nya now that there's one more on the band wagon!

> Short version: Yeah, companies are installing Linux. Woo-fucking-hoo. Do we have to know about every one?

So... what precisely do you do at Microsoft?

Easy Slashbots (4, Informative)

TheGreenLantern (537864) | about 12 years ago | (#3236796)

Before all you Slashbots start screaming "Windoze Suxors!", read the article, and realize Merill is replacing their UNIX systems with Linux. There is no mention of replacing any Windows systems.

Re:Easy Slashbots (3, Insightful)

theCURE (551589) | about 12 years ago | (#3236858)

I did read the article, and no where does it state that Merrill is using UNIX systems. The article does not state what OS's Merrill is currently using, it simply states references to unix systems and transitions to linux in general.

Re:Easy Slashbots (2)

TheGreenLantern (537864) | about 12 years ago | (#3236961)

Indeed, one of the big benefits that Carey sees is that Merrill can write an application once and then deploy it with minimal work on mainframes, minicomputers, desktops, laptops and handhelds--whether it be on Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people) hardware or something else.

This contrasts with Unix in that developers write software for every version of Unix, including for tools and patches. This approach, says Carey, is time-consuming and expensive. If a Unix project doesn't work out for some reason, the technology is rarely transferable to another project.

"When I have proprietary hardware and proprietary software, I have sunk costs into that project that I can't recover," says Carey, adding that commodity technologies are more easily transferable. "Unix took Wall Street fifteen years to master. Nobody has time for that."


I guess it's more implied than explicitly stated they're running UNIX right now, but it seems pretty clear to me they are.

Re:Easy Slashbots (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236894)

That's because windows isn't even considered for server usage. It's simply not reliable for banks, financial institutions etc. Wall st doesn't use NT, they use Unix and every attempt to try and NT has failed miserably.

Re:Easy Slashbots (2, Interesting)

GT_Alias (551463) | about 12 years ago | (#3236947)

He is the person in charge of a top-down implementation of Linux software at Merrill Lynch.

and
one of the big benefits that Carey sees is that Merrill can write an application once and then deploy it with minimal work on mainframes, minicomputers, desktops, laptops and handhelds

Sounds to me like that means top-down. I doubt most of the brokers were using Solaris 8 (or whatever) on their local handheld.

Hmm (1)

sulli (195030) | about 12 years ago | (#3236802)

But there are risks in putting so much behind Linux. For starters, there are legal implications. Does anybody own the intellectual property of the "open-source" software? How exposed are companies to patent violation?
Even more important, who is accountable? Linux is an amalgamation of the input of many companies and individual software engineers. So whom do you call when it breaks? Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?

Seems like the reporter didn't get the story. Surprising given that RHAT was the one that fed him. Isn't RHAT's whole purpose to provide that kind of support for those forking over the bux?

Interesting story though.

Make money off open source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236822)

This is how one makes money off open source technology - vouching for it through support and services. Developement of Technology and Usage of technology dont have to be done bound together as MS claims.. Development goes on freely and people like redhat vouch for its working...

Im not trolling... (2, Insightful)

xtermz (234073) | about 12 years ago | (#3236824)

... But it seemed like only a matter of time before the major players in the business world adopted linux. Hate to jump on the 'Hate MS' Bandwagon, but MS has really fumbled the ball lately. As Linux becomes more widespread, and more competent people who know how to install/run/use it get into the job market, we will see more of these types of stories being commonplace.

The problem I see is, so many people are trying to force feed the linux solution down peoples throats. Yes, advocate linux, but dont throw your hand. Managers and the ones who make business decisions like thinking they stumbled upon a great idea. For the most part, they wont take kindly to some geeky kid in IT telling them "we can save bunches of money with linux"... they have to talk to their buddies on the golf course, etc etc..

To sum it up...dont fret, in time, linux _will_ dominate

Re:Im not trolling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236922)

...but MS has really fumbled the ball lately.

Lately???

Can anyone tell me when Microsoft were on the ball? They never made a product that was worth the money. At least I can't say that about $40 Linux server software. Every CEO who doesn't have Microsoft stock is currently before a DOJ judge telling them just how Microsoft sells software... by forcing it upon the market illegally. Thanks Bill... fuck you.

Linux - it's a pain in the ass, but at least you can't say you are still paying for software that still doesn't work.

Toast on the desktop? Hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236828)

Please pass the toast.

IT'S IT'S IT'S (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236834)

IT'S you amazingly retarded moron.

How after making this mistake 129038190238 times over the years can you not get this simple thing?

Man this scares me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236843)

I hate to say it but this doesn't sound so great at all. There is NO idealism on Wall Street, money and business are the ONLY things that matter. They're confused about Linux's freeness because it's just an alien concept to them that anyone would give anything away that they could charge for. Progress Software (the turds being sued by MySQL) at least make some pretense of supporting free software and wanting to give something back to the community. Wall Street is just take take take. If anyone is going to spend real money trying to mess up the GPL, it's those guys. Imminent death predicted, film at 11, yeah, yeah, I know. I just hope I'm wrong.

Reminded of something from the Skipjack beta (1)

DragonWyatt (62035) | about 12 years ago | (#3236848)

This line in the article:
So whom do you call when it breaks?

...reminded me of this shown on one of the panels during the skipjack (redhat beta) install:

If it breaks, you get to keep all 1445 pieces.

Been there, done that. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236857)

"Would I put an air traffic control system on Linux right now? No," says Carey. "But can it get there within five years? Absolutely."

Actually, I work in the aviation sector, and we've been using Linux for years for computing flight plans and relaying AFTN messages.

Contradictory Article ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236867)

In this article [com.com] [http://news.com.com/2008-1082-867969.html] from NEWS.COM the MS guy quotes Merrill Lynch as one of the dotNET adopters.
At the Visual Studio.Net launch, Merrill Lynch and Loreal chose to take our language and platform and use it. We are pretty darn successful.
A contradiction ?

I still haven't seen the answers I am looking for. (1, Offtopic)

SlashChick (544252) | about 12 years ago | (#3236873)

What is interesting about this article is that it mentions Linux encroaching on UNIX (read: Sun's) territory, but it doesn't mention Microsoft at all. I have to assume that this means an external (web, application) server migration to Linux. If not, I'd like to know the answers to the following questions:

1) How do you work around the complete lack of server-side productivity software on Linux servers? By deploying Exchange, you can make scheduling a meeting as easy as sending an email with a time and having everyone click to confirm the meeting, which is then added to everyone's calendar. There is no solution like this without using Exchange (and I've looked.)

2) How do you work around the lack of group policy controls in SAMBA? By this I mean forcing a computer to have the most up-to-date anti-virus software when it logs on to the domain; mapping network drives automatically; downloading OS patches automatically through a local server. AFAIK, Samba can't do any of this as well as a Windows 2000 Server can. And what about Active Directory? LDAP isn't as cohesive a solution if you are running Windows clients.

From this article, I have to think that Merrill Lynch and others are changing their external server infrastructure, not their internal IT infrastructure.

The other conclusion I must draw is that the companies that are migrating to Linux as a workgroup server (i.e. replacing Windows NT/2000 Server with Linux) did not have a cohesive Windows network in the first place. Unfortunately, Linux is nowhere near a solution to Exchange, and it's perhaps 25% of the way to replacing a Windows 2000 primary domain controller's capabilities.

So what servers is Merrill Lynch migrating? Linux does have its core competencies -- web servers; application servers; network storage to some degree -- but they didn't mention what part of the infrastructure they were replacing. I would thus take the words "companywide" with a grain of salt in this case.

Bad journalism (2)

Ogerman (136333) | about 12 years ago | (#3236880)

Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?

Perhaps what they meant to say is "not all software that runs on Linux is free"

For God's sake Rob... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236884)

Can you spell every word in a post correctly for ONCE? (Lynch)

I think we should put a game together... (SlashWhacking)... and see how many fucked up words we can find in Taco's posts. I can't believe an 'editor' can't take the time to put together correctly spelled English. This may be a forum for technology, but at least take a little pride in what you post.

yes, this is all well and good.. (1)

prizzznecious (551920) | about 12 years ago | (#3236889)

Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't really doing anything that profound here. After all, Linux already has a pretty decent foothold in the server market (20 something percent?) This has nothing to do with Linux's battle for desktop market share, because they're not going to be running Linux on their desktops. That's what i'm most interested in hearing about, but so far I haven't seen any articles indicating that any major company is doing this.

And until some companies do, you can pretty much forget about Linux on the desktop picking up any steam.

Good anecdote, but what's with the editorializing? (2)

drew_kime (303965) | about 12 years ago | (#3236891)

"Initially it was about cost savings but it has been a benefit to the business because we're profiting from being more flexible," says Steve Yatko, chief technology officer of securities IT at CSFB. "Our trading volume has increased [twenty-fold], and our customers are seeing better pricing. And things that used to take days [like installing applications and doing management tasks] now take minutes."

That's a great quote to take to the PHB's. What's even better about it is that it isn't limited to Linux's benefits vs. any particular platform, but against the whole universe of closed source.

But then there's this:

Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?

Umm, how about like this. Buy or download a copy, modify however you like, and install it everywhere you want. As long as you aren't releasing it outside the organization (and there's no way they would) they don't need to worry about licensing or IP.

Good news for Red Hat!! (4, Funny)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | about 12 years ago | (#3236906)

Thousands of copies getting potentially used means revenues of, what, about $150 for that single copy?

Marge, CALL MY BROKER AND BUY RED HAT! BUY BUY BUY!!

Well (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236909)

The well is dug

(Like so many has said before me:
Let Microsoft deprecate Win9x and NT/2000)

and the well is well on the way, nonethelessssss

Okay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236932)

First, as far as I understand, ML is switching their Unix systems to Linux. Not their MS Windows systems.

This isn't that bad. Sure, Unix is taking a hit, and MS Windows isn't being replaced. The horror.

Why isn't it bad?

Every server that's switched from Unix to Linux instead of NT or 2k..

Frankly, who cares about the desktop. Linux won't 'conquer' the desktop without third party support. Support from technical places that produce software, not from companies like ML.

Our greatest allies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236935)

These may be the most important Linux installations since Alan Cox reformatted his Minix partition. Wall Street firms could be tremendously good for the development a Linux. Why? Here are a few reasons:

Sad really. . . (1)

Speed Racer (9074) | about 12 years ago | (#3236937)

Intel-based servers may be cheap and all, but I do not look forward to a future where the RISC-based manufacturers, such as Sun, IBM, and SGI, are totally displaced.

Reality is that traditional RISC-based workstations and servers, such as Sun's higher-end Ultra and Blade workstations, are really a joy to work with. They are amazingly robust and flexible, since they typically are the result of long and thorough development and testing efforts. They tend to have useful lifetimes of about a decade, where they keep finding new roles and finally get mothballed after enjoying a last hurrah as a print server. They have genuine firmware, so you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bootstrap the system they way you want to. Their enclosures are very well engineered for easy maintainence, fewer moving parts, and good airflow. And on and on...

Whenever I see the inside of an Intel-based server, I am a bit disappointed. Working with one tends to be disappointing as well. Truth is: you do get what you pay for.

I hope Merrill Lynch doesn't learn too many hard lessons these next few years.

Merril London Office (2, Informative)

terracon (70374) | about 12 years ago | (#3236939)

My Brother works for Merrill Lynch. He is in the London office. I was there on vacation a couple weeks ago and I had the oppurtunity to visit the new Merril Office there. It's very cool btw. What I saw on my brother's desk was 2 machines. One Sun and one dell, both dual head, flat panel. As it says in the article, Sun is being displaced on the desktop in this particular instance. It will be interesting when I visit him again and I go to the office. What will I see? One Windows machine or one Linux Machine, or just Linux replacing Sun and Windows staying as is.

Lyrnch? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3236949)

Pssst: there's a typo in the posting (Lyrnch?). Hate to be anal, but correctness is key for a highly read e-mag such as /.!

Why this is good news for Red Hat (1)

CathedralRulz (566696) | about 12 years ago | (#3236960)

This is more than just buying, say, a common commodity from a distributor.

If Red Hat ever went under, Merril Lynch would be in deep trouble. Now, Merril Lynch's success is critically linked to that of Red Hat's. Maybe the next time Red Hat wants a round of public financing or a good loan, Merril will have a personal interest in giving Red Hat a hand.

Favorite quote (4, Interesting)

johnlenin1 (140093) | about 12 years ago | (#3236962)

But there are risks in putting so much behind Linux. For starters, there are legal implications. Does anybody own the intellectual property of the "open-source" software? How exposed are companies to patent violation?

Obviously Lisa DiCarlo [forbes.com] really understands the comcepts in the story she just wrote. Yeah.

This is great and all..... (2, Interesting)

dciman (106457) | about 12 years ago | (#3236963)

But I hate to see people moving to Red Hat based distros. I know they have the support network that compaines of that size need and all. But, I think that we risk building another monopoly in the linux market. There are already tons of people who think that Red Hat *IS* linux. Personally I can't stand Red Hat distros with all of their default bloatware. I would love to see a good comercial support company for Debian.

Two interesting side-effects... (5, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | about 12 years ago | (#3236967)

First, Merrill Lynch praised the portability of Linux applications and their ability to scale across the enterprise, with a swipe at proprietary applications. Maybe they'll wake up for a moment, and realize what their most locked-in platform is.

Second, this seems to be largely a matter of Linux moving into Unix turf. I expect to see some minor disasters happen with this type of migration, and that's a Good Thing. Why, because part of the savings is moving onto dirt cheap PCs from expensive hardware. Part of the expense of that old hardware is the label, but part is genuine quality, too. After someone starts to get a handle on money lost because PCs are too cheap, causing down-time and even some erroneous data, there will be a move to put some quality back in. We will all have a better quality spectrum to buy from, and it will be better labeled and reviewed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...