4 ms·
> laziness, ignorance or corporate bureaucracy I get that you're upset that you can't use the OS of your choice, but this is not a fair assessment. There are v
by dyeje 6y ago
> laziness, ignorance or corporate bureaucracy
I get that you're upset that you can't use the OS of your choice, but this is not a fair assessment. There are very real, valid operational constraints that lead companies to restrict what machines can be used.
- diehunde 6y agoI can't imagine a constraint that would lead to restrict the use of Linux over Windows/MacOs unless is bureaucracy or ignorance like OP said. The only exceptions I can think of is they do development with tools only available for those systems, in which case I assume OP wouldn't apply in the first place since he uses Linux, and second having a deal with Microsoft or Apple which is not really an operational constraint.
- dyeje 6y agoThe major reason is going to be software support (e.g. MDM, endpoint protection, etc). Having a deal / set procurement process seems like a pretty real operational constraint to me. At the end of the day, it's going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars to support 1 Linux machine. If you were on the other side of the table, does that seem worth it when most folks are happy to take the machines you already offer?
- boring_twenties 6y ago> tens of thousands of dollars to support 1 Linux machine I think you're several orders of magnitude off here, but let's assume for the sake of argument that this is even closer to accurate. (Last place I worked gave us the choice of having a Linux desktop. I'm pretty sure the admins only touched my box twice during 5 years: the initial install, and the upgrade to CentOS 7.) Searching for another qualified candidate will cost them even more tens of thousands of dollars, plus an unspecified but surely significant amount of both wall-clock time and man-hours.