3 ms·
Isn’t the reverse just as stupid? Like, my company only dishes out Dells. I’m harsh on dell, but it’s not because of a company supplier contract.
by wodenokoto 3y ago
Isn’t the reverse just as stupid? Like, my company only dishes out Dells. I’m harsh on dell, but it’s not because of a company supplier contract.
- OJFord 3y agoThe non-stupid reverse would be not to deny the requests for non-macs? So you'd have a mix of Dell Inspirons (or whatever) and MacBooks according to what was requested; some Edge users, some Chrome/Firefox but on Windows or Linux users, etc.
- gspencley 3y agoWell, yeah. For the productivity reason it's weird to tell engineers that they must use either a PC or Mac (and forget blanket "PC", if you're most productive on Linux or FreeBSD then ideally engineers can use those). The one rationale that makes sense to me when it comes to restricting choice to a certain degree is the ability for IT to remote-wipe if necessary. How important that is will depend on context. At my current place of work, most company data is accessed through various web applications so if the computer were compromised, there is no sensitive data kept locally that would require wiping. Though I suppose it could be argued that browser caches could be sensitive, and even if you couldn't sign on to those web apps, due to MFA, an attacker could still get information about procedures and tech used that would get them closer. But if they're using JAMF or something they can at least support Windows and Mac. The only other reason that I can think of that a company would have such a policy is economic... but lost productivity and user frustration is a hidden cost, so how real the economic advantages of standardizing are is something I question.
- diffeomorphism 3y agoThe reverse of "only macs" is not "only dells" but "not only ... but a mixture of".