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.

    • Tibert@compuverse.uk
      9·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • Tibert@compuverse.uk
          1·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • Tibert@compuverse.uk
              1·
              10 months ago

              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.

                • Tibert@compuverse.uk
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  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.