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.
About the point 2, it says that Windows cost much more than making your own distro which can be made by 1 single person if you know enough of Linux.
About the final point, that is the excuse, "stick with what you know" so they aren't really doing their job providing us our needed tools to work with... That's what I blame, get some Linux IT expert and give support.
Do you know how much cost is involved in developing a peace of software?
Get what you need > a lot of time and good view of the company is needed.
Then either get a company to do it > expensive + no control on the software.
Or/
Make it yourself > extremely expensive + control on the software.
Get the right people > hiring campaign > expensive
Then these hired people represent more people to pay each month > expensive.
If there aren't right people, you need to teach the devs how to work on it > expensive formations and it's done on the working time, so double expensive.
Then time invested in creating the Linux distro adapted to the company > time, testing, mistakes, redo, undo... expensive.
(let's not forget about taxes and obligations towards the new workers).
And then factor in that it needs a team to maintain it, to prevent future compatibility issues or vulnerabilities, which is also expensive.
But you realize Google did this already? I don't think they are wasting any money on Windows unless for market domination.
Do you know how much money Google has? It's enough to do whatever with that, even just keep the people away from competition.
Why Google did that or if it's even true? Not sure.
However Google is a big tech which develops software for a multitude of platforms, even Linux. They work on their own Linux mod : Android.
So they have all the people already in the company to do whatever they want on Linux.
They also have specific needs which may not need windows.
We however use excel and the advanced feature Power query and power Bi. So as long as a Foss alternative doesn't get to the level of the current insanely powerful excel and power bi, we'll be stuck on windows.
So because it's Google means they waste their money? Nope, they just know why they are using Linux, and I'm sure they are spending less money than what they should if they used Microsoft/Apple technologies.
Sure. But google does waste money if it brings them profit. It would be rather called an investment.
However the example of Google is extremely bad, because it can only be applied to very large tech companies who already have people developing for Linux.
It's not a waste of money, it's a bad example.
But other companies can do the same as Google did, I saw distributions maintained by 1 single person, what stops companies to do the same? I think that is the lack of knowledge of how Linux works. Google is a good example and could work for many big companies, small companies normally allows already to work with Linux or I have been lucky to find dev job positions on small companies that work with Linux already.
They can't really do that, mostly because it's not "just 1 person".
There are a lot of costs going into maintaining the os, apps, custom software, and training for the employees.
Google is giant, and has a huge amount of money. They can afford to spend the costs of training, modifying software, or developing other software for their needs if it reduces their future costs.
A smaller company don't have all those funds, they wouldn't be able to invest as much into switching to Linux and maintaining the custom software or finding new software and training.
When people switch to another software, there is also a period of low productivity, when these same people are still discovering the software, and cannot do everything as fast as before. That is also creating additional costs.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3245645/the-5-best-linux-distros-for-work-red-hat-suse-ubuntu-linux-mint-and-tens.html
Not that hard, not that expensive.
I said you can, but for companies that really wants to do it, 3 - 4 persons could be better to make sure everything works 7/24. For smaller companies they probably neither have IT, if they have, then they can manage Linux. If they hire people that don't know how to use Linux, then they are hiring people not prepared to provide to their workers the tools they need, and they will need to "stick with what they know" which is Windows.
Yup, right now I am having issues with Mac and Windows, issues like arch dependent tools (M2 is ARM) or Windows that can't deal with docker properly. All systems have their own costs.
If they had any issues they would undo it and go back with Windows, they didn't probably because the cost to "into maintaining the OS, apps, custom software, and training for the employees" isn't that expensive as running all desktops with Windows.
The tools exist, they just need to hire people that actually knows how Linux works, still will be cheaper than paying Windows licenses and support stuff.
Is that an argument for not giving support to Linux users? Every Linux user needs to lean how Windows or Apple works right now, and Windows and Apple is already an option to choice (normally), I don't know who would request to work with Linux if they don't know how it works...
The article only talks about deployment costs. What about the rest?
For you a company should just throw away it's employees to hire inexistent Linux experts or people using Linux software or whatever?
There is the server side. There I agree that using Linux is great.
On the client side it can be more complicated. A lot of schools in various domains teach the students how to use the software on windows. Not Linux.
Furthermore, a company doesn't pop into existence the moment where it thinks it needs to switch to Linux.
The company already exists, providing work to the employees, trained on windows. So switching on Linux may change the software if it cannot be used on Linux (not everything is a saas). And that can be a time consuming process for the employees too because they don't know how to use it efficiently.
There are Linux experts.
Not only great... xD
I never said all them needs to switch, I just said to provide support for people that never uses Windows or Mac, so we can keep working properly with our Linux tool and all our environment.
If they want to switch all from Windows to Linux, then it's a huge decision... because of Microsoft monopoly, everyone buys PC with Windows licenses and that's the only reason I see why companies uses Windows, the monopoly.
I won't comment on point 2 as I think that has been answered suffiently. On the final point Linux support is more expensive. First line Linux support pays better than first line windows support because well. It is still nieche so workers can command better pay.
You will also have to go through your whole application library and make sure it works, if it doesn't can you get it to work or do you have to move applications? That will be expensive and time consuming, more than likely someone does something once a year which is really really important who gets missed and you swapped over 6 months ago and now you have to hack a way for this process to work in 2 weeks to meet the deliverable.
This isn't including training your staff. You have to retrain everyone which is going to be expensive. To be blunt a lot of regular users barely know how Windows works and any change to their way of working is going to be hell. Then you have the cost of retraining the whole IT department which is going to cost more than the regular users.
Sticking with what you know may not be the right thing to do but it usually is the safest option.
Don't get me wrong I would love Linux to take over the office space but I can't see that happeing in the next 20 years. Maybe in a startup it'll work but, moving from something so entrenched in your company is a very big and very scary ask.