I’m just tired. On the last post about having Linux at our work, many people that seems to be an IT worker said there have been several issues with Linux that was not easy to manipulate or control like they do with Windows, but I think they just are lazy to find out ways to provide this support. Because Google forces all their workers to use Linux, and they have pretty much control on their OS as any other Windows system.

Linux is a valid system that can be used for work, just as many other companies do.

So my point is, the excuse of “Linux is not ready for workplaces” could be just a lack of knowledge of the IT team and/or a lack of intention to provide to developers the right tools to work.

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    262·
    1 year ago

    At best, it means sysadmin have to support both Linux and windows. You’re going to double everyone’s tools.

    This reads like an engineer who is way too invested in using their toolset and thinks everyone else is stupid for not using the same. Like someone who has never worked in management or had to make business decisions. They are looking at it only through a tech viewpoint.

    Not only would you need to have an IT team that knew how to manage and support it (which costs money and time) but you then have to train your entire work force which costs insane amounts of time. You would have to do IT training for every new hire for them to even use their computer. That sort of time and training (which takes two employees, the trainer and trainee) costs a lot of money, far more than any OS licensing or end user software costs. Plus the decreased work output while the user to get used to the toolset.

    In a software development company, sure, Linux might be a valid option. But it’s not ready for most companies main workforce. And it’s not a technological issue. It’s a human resources issue.

    • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
      5·
      1 year ago

      Many places support MacOS as well, so it would only be a third additional toolset. Plus, there’s a ton of overlap between toolchains, which reduces the overhead further. If you’re supporting enterprise MacOS, you’re probably using Foreman, JAMF, or Puppet with Active Directory.

      Not to mention, a lot of places already have Linux servers, so the configuration management toolchains and expertise may already exist in a given organization, unless they’re absolutely pathologically mired in the Windows ecosystem. Which, granted, is a lot of places, but you’re making it sound far harder than it would be in a real world situation.

    • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
      116·
      1 year ago

      It’s also a tech issue. Linux Desktop is a mess and breaks constantly as soon as you start to tweak it. And every damn plug in is maintained by a few different people with no commitment of backwards compatibility. It’s a disaster and incredibly time intensive to troubleshoot every broken desktop on patches.

      Linux is great for running technology services. Linux DE is and has been a disaster for 20 years now.

      • X3I@lemmy.x3i.tech
        9·
        1 year ago

        Wtf is “Linux desktop”? There are more than a dozen different mainstream desktop environments and window managers that have different degrees of maturity, stability and complexity so this blank statement is very hard to support. Not even talking about the servers/prtocols behind it. I can certainly not confirm that experience on Sway, Gnome and Hyprland and with how young the latter is, I would actually expect it to break.

        So no, from a technical perspective, Linux is absolutely ready as long as you stick to stable distros and configurations.

        Edit: wording