SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Sir Finkus writes:
"As Microsoft begins to end support for Windows XP, many ATM operators are investigating Linux as an alternative. Microsoft will no longer provide updates for the operating system, which currently powers nearly 95% of the world's ATMs.
Operators say that they'd like to be able to upgrade their machines and operating system at the same time. They are also hampered by the high cost of upgrading machines and regulatory requirements. With the lifetime of a typical ATM being 10-15 years, companies would value more flexible upgrade schedules."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ATM Operators Eye Linux as Windows XP Support Ends
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's not reality that's important, but how you perceive things.
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Tuesday March 25 2014, @12:57AM
I think you mean attack surface, but if I'm wrong, please correct me, I could stand to learn something.
You have a lot of good points and I agree with them, but there are a lot more programmers selling software for Microsoft. I'm surprised ATM vendors aren't trying to license server 2012 (or 2008) since you can install Core. With Hyper-V 2012 Server, you get a free server with a minimal attack surface that will run an awful lot of Windows programs without any modification and probably a lot more with minimal work.
I'm kind of stuck with a lot of Windows boxes to support and only so many could be replaced by Linux. One of the things I have done is migrate our virtualization to Hyper-V 2012 server and I've been pleased with the results. I didn't do it because it was free, although I consider that a bonus, I did it because it cuts down on the necessary support patches by a large amount.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:11AM
Correct re "attack surface". The thing is, these people don't need Windows programs, they need a minimal UI and some network and custom hardware drivers, all of which tend to be easier under Linux. They don't need virtualization (that has its own upgrade cycle from Microsoft), they need close to the metal minimal solutions.
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:22AM
I really don't want to advocate for a Microsoft solution. There are plenty of good reasons why it's not optimal.
Still, I'm going to pretend for a few moments that I actually want to defend the idea. Close to the metal minimal solutions are fragile, because hardware changes and developing your own OS requires a diligence to constant ongoing development, research and testing. It's practically always better to use the work already existing than to roll your own solution from the metal up. You can do so with a kernel from Linux or Windows or Unix and get a platform you can reliably develop for without having to depend on your own more limited resources.
When it comes to that layer of software that communicates with the hardware, it doesn't matter which of the three you choose for the purposes of reliability and security within sane limits so long as you really do use a minimum of that platform. The kernel of any of the three and the drivers developed for it are likely to be as safe as you can ask for but all are going to need some kind of upgrade since an OS is never without security patches. By choosing a minimal system, you eliminate most of the attack vectors, which is in line with your original point.
Deciding which one suits your needs best really boils down to what developers you're hiring and what kind of software you need to support. I like Xen and Hyper-V because I know them well. You can run an awful lot of software on those systems directly without needing to virtualize a traditional OS. They're minimal by nature. They're supported. They're stable. Sure, I'd rather develop on a Linux Xen system, but I'd rather pay for development on Hyper-V because there are more and cheaper development teams already available.
Do they need Windows solutions? Of course not, but it may be cheaper. Note that I wasn't suggesting Windows though, Hyper-V 2012 core doesn't come with Windows, since Windows Hyper-V is a non-free and much more complex system. Hyper-V is a minimal, stable, supported, non-Windows option that supports inexpensive development. If you'd rather develop in Linux, then Hyper-V will support Linux installs, as minimal or complex as you like. I know, I admin several of them.
What is really cool is being able to tell the CEO that some Windows servers are getting old and need replaced, but that you've already got a free, stable, supported Linux system in line to replace it, already running and being tested on the same hardware and at no additional cost.