let’s take away all the good productivity tools from our public broadcaster

I think you misread. They suggested giving them better tools.

let’s take away all the good productivity tools from our public broadcaster

I think you misread. They suggested giving them better tools.

Sure, OK, I think that’s a valid argument for the OS itself and Microsoft Office. But I’m sure there’s a lot of Windows-only software that they use and won’t be easy to switch. There’s a huge price just to making a change like that, including training staff on new software. You can’t just say “let’s switch to Linux” and hand waive that away.

You also need to consider that organizations need commercially supported software. Nobody in their right mind would run some community-supported distro. They would want a commercially supported distro like Redhat, and that’s going to cost money. I’m sorry, but talk to anyone who’s run IT at a company. You need great tooling and support to administer a fleet of PCs, and I just don’t think that exists on Linux.

What PCs and laptops are they going to procure? There’s only like 2 vendors that ship hardware with Linux. That doesn’t give them much choice. I’m sure they have other organizational requirements that will need to be met too.

This whole “Linux is the best and should/will rule the world” is just Lemmy populism. It seems awesome when you’re a teenager but once you have experience working at companies and start to understand what they need in order to run IT, you see why Microsoft dominates the world. There’s just simply no other competitive option. (On the server side, it’s a completely different story.)

Sure, OK, I think that’s a valid argument for the OS itself and Microsoft Office. But I’m sure there’s a lot of Windows-only software that they use and won’t be easy to switch. There’s a huge price just to making a change like that, including training staff on new software. You can’t just say “let’s switch to Linux” and hand waive that away.

You also need to consider that organizations need commercially supported software. Nobody in their right mind would run some community-supported distro. They would want a commercially supported distro like Redhat, and that’s going to cost money. I’m sorry, but talk to anyone who’s run IT at a company. You need great tooling and support to administer a fleet of PCs, and I just don’t think that exists on Linux.

What PCs and laptops are they going to procure? There’s only like 2 vendors that ship hardware with Linux. That doesn’t give them much choice. I’m sure they have other organizational requirements that will need to be met too.

This whole “Linux is the best and should/will rule the world” is just Lemmy populism. It seems awesome when you’re a teenager but once you have experience working at companies and start to understand what they need in order to run IT, you see why Microsoft dominates the world. There’s just simply no other competitive option. (On the server side, it’s a completely different story.)

Some governments have been starting this transition already.

German state gov. ditching Windows for Linux, 30K workers migrating

Schleswig-Holstein looks to succeed where Munich failed.

Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)

Nobody in their right mind would run some community-supported distro

Unless you’re an enterprise customer that pays for enterprise support, Windows is as much of a community-supportered “distro” as Arch.

They would want a commercially supported distro like Redhat, and that’s going to cost money.

No, only if you pay for support.

talk to anyone who’s run IT at a company

Hi, you’re talking to one.

You need great tooling and support to administer a fleet of PCs, and I just don’t think that exists on Linux.

You think wrong. Very wrong.

What PCs and laptops are they going to procure? There’s only like 2 vendors that ship hardware with Linux.

• Lenovo
• Dell
• HP
• Entroware
• System76
• Tuxedo Computers
• Framework
• Purism

And there’s more …

It seems awesome when you’re a teenager but once you have experience working at companies and start to understand what they need in order to run IT

Windows is the last thing I’d ever want to run in an IT department. And believe me, I have plenty of experience. But don’t take my word for it, just look at the European places that are ditching Microsoft completely.

you see why Microsoft dominates the world.

The reasons why are not what you’re implying.

There’s just simply no other competitive option

Even a Mac is competitive against Windows. Linux doubly so. It’s also the reason that all these benchmarks are coming out showing how Windows games run on Linux performance better than on Windows. Don’t even get me started on security. I personally don’t have any Windows computers in my house, and the only Windows VM on my network can’t reach the internet. Only a madman or someone who didn’t know better would let it.

Edit: formatting

Yes, and we’ll see if this turns out any better than Munich’s failed attempt to do that in 2003, which specifically cited high costs as part of the reason they gave up on it after 15 years (lol).

You like half agreed with me (businesses need commercial support) and then half disagreed with me, lol. Thanks for the list of hardware vendors that ship Linux. I didn’t realize Lenovo and HP had that option on desktops and laptops, as I was only aware of Dell and the smaller vendors.

Windows is the last thing I’d ever want to run in an IT department. And believe me, I have plenty of experience. But don’t take my word for it, just look at the European places that are ditching Microsoft completely.

I do need some citations, because when you say this, I’m reminded of Hamburg’s attempt in 2003 to switch to Linux, which they gave up on after more than a decade because of high costs and user frustration. Citing one or two news headlines doesn’t make it a movement.

We can all hate Windows, but accept the reality that every large organization voluntarily chooses Windows for good reasons. You’re basically implying that every head of IT department is a moron except for you for choosing Windows over Linux for their fleet, which is some cognitive dissonance. This isn’t the year 2000, with Linux being some newfangled thing. Everybody knows about Linux.

Let’s look at running Adobe Photoshop on Windows vs. Linux. On Windows, Adobe fully supports the operation of the software on Windows, and Microsoft is committed to compatibility and ensure software applications work. This is what you get for your money - something that you can depend on working at the start of every workday. On Linux, you’ll need WINE, which introduces a third party required to make Photoshop run. However, you’re not paying for WINE, which means you’re getting zero support. So if some Ubuntu security update comes out, and breaks WINE with Photoshop, you’re up shit creek until some random community member fixes it or it happens to get prioritized. That’s lost productivity ($$$). Or, perhaps you decide to run a commercially supported WINE distribution like CrossOver then, which gives you better guarantees about software compatibility on an ongoing basis. That costs money, which is against the initial argument here of Linux being cheaper, and it still doesn’t give you as good of a guarantee as just running Windows would have. Even this Crossover vs. Windows comparison chart on the CrossOver website makes Windows look like a bargain, because the loss of productivity of a user even hitting one issue is going to dwarf the difference in price.

1. Marc Carney promised to increase CBC funding. Not slash it. This kind of bullshit combined with a flawed voting system, is exactly why people are losing trust in democracy.

2. You want Crown Corporations to save money? I’ll give you savings.

• Stop paying millions of dollars to use Microsoft Office. Instead, use LibreOffice.

• Stop paying millions of dollars to use Microsoft Windows. Instead, use Linux.

You like half agreed with me (businesses need commercial support)

No, I didn’t “agree” with you. I said IF a business needs support for their infrastructure/systems they need to pay for that support regardless who provides that support (Microsoft, Redhat, Canonical, SUSE). If support is not paid for, then Windows becomes supported to the same degree as a Linux distro like Arch, which means “community support”.

I do need some citations

A Search for Digital Sovereignty: EU Governments Shift from Microsoft to Linux & LibreOffice - 2Data

2Data - Software Licensing Specialists (2-data.com)

France, Germany, Netherlands. Just to name a few.

I’m reminded of Hamburg’s attempt in 2003 to switch to Linux, which they gave up on after more than a decade because of high costs and user frustration.

You mean Munich? That’s the only story from 2003 that I know of. And that wasn’t a failed attempt. It actually succeeded. One of the often cited stories is that they “switched back”, but that never actually happened. Microsoft made a handshake deal with the city to build a new office in Munich if they switched back to Windows, but a new administration was voted in shortly after and nixed that plan. Then continued the move to Linux.

because of high costs and user frustration

Again, if it’s the Munich story you’re referring to, then what you said is not true. There’s always higher upfront costs when switching systems. You cannot use the transition costs as the prime example of costs. You need to account for the costs over a long period of time.

And users were actually happier with the switch to Linux (in Munich). IT support calls even went down due to the stability benefits of a Linux system.

but accept the reality that every large organization voluntarily chooses Windows for good reasons

They chose Linux Windows because the technology people rarely have a say in business decisions and higher-up execs get fed marketing stuff from Microsoft sales people. Even today I hear all kinds of outlandish nonsense from business execs about Linux and open source. Microsoft has spent billions upon billions in marketing to make anything non-Microsoft seem scary and anti-business. Linux on the other hand has no such marketing.

You’re basically implying that every head of IT department is a moron

No, I’m saying most of them don’t have a choice, don’t care, or frankly don’t know any better. 90% of IT admins go into the field with the same marketing that’s been pushed by Microsoft: “you want to get a good job and good salary? Then you need your Microsoft Server 2xxx certifications!”. I actually have those certs, they’re useless once you learn open source and Linux stuff. Simply because when you learn how to admin Linux you learn how computers work, and that’s common knowledge in the field that Linux admins generally (never always) have a better fundamental understanding of computing systems. Whereas your Microsoft certified power admin mainly learns the high level Microsoft way of doing things.

This isn’t the year 2000, with Linux being some newfangled thing. Everybody knows about Linux.

No, the majority of execs have no clue what it is. They may have heard the word Linux before, and maybe they know it has something to do with their company servers, but that’s about it. Every place I’ve worked at I’ve managed to convince the right people to change company policy about the approved OSes workers can use. And each time the policy was originally “Windows only” because “reasons” that no one could explain.

Let’s look at running Adobe Photoshop on Windows vs. Linux

No, let’s not. Adobe is a garbage company with garbage software. If for some god-awful reason you must use Adobe products, then you install Windows and do your work. For everyone else, they can use the myriad of other, and better, tools that replace each and every one of Adobe’s products.

Microsoft is committed to compatibility and ensure software applications work

That’s not how software development works. At all. Microsoft provides a set of baseline ABIs for software to utilize. It’s up to each software vendor to ensure that their software is updated for each release of Windows. The same as any other OS. If software doesn’t work on a newer version of Windows, or doesn’t work on Linux, then that’s the decision/fault of the software vendor.

On Linux, you’ll need WINE, which introduces a third party required to make Photoshop run.

The funny thing about this statement is the number of assumptions you’ve made. Also, see my previous statement about running Windows if your soul is forsaken and you need to run Adobe software.

So if some Ubuntu security update comes out, and breaks WINE with Photoshop, you’re up shit creek until some random community member fixes it or it happens to get prioritized.

That’s not how WINE works. Additionally if you need something for work then use an alternative available on Linux. For professional graphics and 3D applications many Linux native products exist, and your purchase cones with support.

Also, there are various binary distribution types available on Linux that allow a vendor to package up their software so that it works nearly seamlessly on any Linux distro/version.

That costs money, which is against the initial argument here of Linux being cheaper, and it still doesn’t give you as good of a guarantee as just running Windows would have

This is a strawman argument, and you know it.

How is it a strawman? Ok, let me explain:

You posited a scenario that introduces a high level of complexity and an unofficial install path for software that’s explicitly not supported on Linux. Then you imagine an additional scenario built on the first one where the user/company is running business critical software on that “unstable” software stack, and use that as an example of how a company would lose money as a result.

You may as well have said bicycles are dangerous and cars are safer, because if you ride your bicycle on the freeway you’ll get hit by a car.

That’s a strawman.

Edit: I wrote “Linux” instead of “Windows” in one spot

I’m too lazy to argue against you, but just be grateful you have a job because I couldn’t imagine any company hiring someone in IT with your perspectives. You’re missing the forest for the trees.