- Steve Jobs is a man of a few words
- Internet routing blasts into space
- 15 free downloads to pep up your old PC
- IBM smartphone software translates 11 languages
- New attack fells Internet Explorer
NEW YORK -- Wall Street firms increasingly are buying into Linux, but some still need convincing that open source licensing and support models won't make using the technology more trouble than it's worth.
Linux providers, speaking this week at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) conference in New York City, stated their cases that Wall Street firms have nothing to fear about diving into open source. Red Hat and Novell argued that's especially true now that specialized Real Time Linux has been developed that meets strict low-latency and messaging requirements of brokerages and trading firms.
"There's a strong business case for Linux as an alternative to Microsoft or Unix derivatives," said Roger Levy, senior vice president and general manager of open platform solutions at Novell, which late last year released what it calls SUSE Enterprise Real Time 10 specifically for use in organizations that have millions or billions of dollars at stake based on how quickly they can complete trades.
In addition, Levy said Novell has released the alpha version of SUSE Studio toolkit for "mass customization" of Linux, adding this is "something a proprietary systems vendor would never do."
Red Hat, which last month celebrated news that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and its international subsidiaries were adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux and dumping Sun's Solaris, also has a Real-Time Linux version. Its Red Hat Enterprise MRG uses the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol developed by financial institutions JP Morgan Chase Bank and Credit Suisse with contributions from Cisco, Red Hat, Novell and other high-tech firms.
"This is about not just being fast but guaranteed-to-happen within a certain window," said Michael Tiemann, vice president of open source affairs at Red Hat.
But even as the Wall Street crowd increasingly puts its money on Linux — market watcher Tabb Group estimates that Linux adoption among the 14 biggest investment firms this year will reach more than 72% of the installed operating server base vs. 60% in 2006 — it's clear concerns linger about the licensing model. That model requires users return changes to the open source community under certain circumstances, a touchy subject for companies that are battling to accelerate their business processes.
Sun Microsystems, which now has an open source version of Solaris called OpenSolaris, is addressing such concerns by letting technology managers know that it doesn't make the demand to re-contribute changes. "Our business model is very different," says Amir Halfon, lead architect with the global financial services solutions division at Sun, which has developed Java Real-Time System to give Java-based applications a real-time requirement for fixed latency.
Linux vendors acknowledge they that hear the licensing concerns come up often.
"There's a great fear sometimes, that if I use open source, will I lose my intellectual property?" acknowledged Novell's Levy. Other panelists Randy Hergett, director of engineering for the Open Source and Linux Organizations at HP, and Marcus Rex, CTO at the Linux Foundation, sought to assuage those fears.
Comments (13)
Don't these folks read the GPL???By Anonymous on June 12, 2008, 9:32 pm"The current license for Linux requires you give back any changes you make to the open source community, but there's no way anyone can require those assurances and...
Reply | Read entire comment
First, Linux is the kernel, not the entire operating system...By Anonymous on June 13, 2008, 10:36 amFirst, Linux is the kernel, not the entire operating system. This means the 'Linux license' affects application code running on it in no way. Second, the GPL does...
Reply | Read entire comment
PracticalitiesBy ForeverAndAnon on June 13, 2008, 11:57 am> First, Linux is the kernel, not the entire > operating system. With regards to licensing that's true, but you'll have your work cut out for you if you plan...
Reply | Read entire comment
GPL does *not* require in-house modifications to be released!By Anonymous on June 13, 2008, 7:30 pmThis is complete FUD. In-house code remains private unless the derivative program is distributed outside the company. In that case, the modifications to the source...
Reply | Read entire comment
Apple and Linux against MicrosoftBy Anonymous on June 13, 2008, 8:30 pmMicrosoft is under attack from Apple on the high end and Linux on the low end. OS X blows away any MSFT offering, while Linux is ruling the new sub-miniature cheapie...
Reply | Read entire comment
Article is Grotesquely MisleadingBy Anonymous on June 13, 2008, 9:03 pmThe GPL does not require disclosure of modified source code if the modified source code is not distributed. Where is the concern?
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments