• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    I keep seeing people say this and it’s like have you actually ever used Linux in a production environment?

    Linux is great on single computers systems and of course on servers but trying to manage hundreds of desktops, laptops, iPhones, iPads, random Androids you have to support because C suit, and PoS till systems that run on modified Windows XP and you realise you can’t just switch everything over to Linux.

    Because Linux doesn’t have a clue how to support any of that. As much as Windows is trash and I hate it, there is no replacement for Active Directory or SCCM, even Apple don’t have such a robust support system.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Half of the stuff you mentioned already doesn’t use Windows.

      I’ve seen places able to include Linux dev machine in their fleet. Not doing it is either laziness, incompetence, or understaffing.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        No it’s not it’s pragmatism. Is it worth putting in all the effort to support Linux in a corporate environment that mostly runs on office suite applications?

        If it was a 30 minute drop in solution then yeah by all means we can experiment with it and we can move over gradually but if it’s going to require an extensive project it’s not worth it. People complaining about this stuff don’t work in the corporate IT world, they live in idealised fantasy land.

        If Linux was a sensible solution it would have been adopted years ago. No more licence fees, that gets the stuffed shirts happy.