3 ms·
Again, this is a decision by the managers and corporations, which is my whole point. They could have chosen to use Linux despite these difficulties. You can a
by shiroiushi 2y ago
Again, this is a decision by the managers and corporations, which is my whole point. They could have chosen to use Linux despite these difficulties. You can argue all you want about how much easier Windows was to administer, but ultimately it was a choice by the corporate managers to use it. Linux had its own advantages (cost, not having to worry about all the MS viruses of the 2000s, etc.) too.
- notepad0x90 2y agoIf you can't afford something, for you it does not exist. Linux does not exist for those managers and corporations for the specific use cases we're talking about. If you simply can't even get an applicant for a linux admin job in your hiring pipeline, what is the point of even pretending linux exists?
- shiroiushi 2y agoYou still haven't invalidated my point. The managers chose Windows, instead of choosing something else, like Linux, Mac, Sun, SGI, Cray, etc., for various reasons (possibly including cost, availability of qualified employees, etc.). They did not choose Windows because a bunch of devs from India were too poor to buy Macs, which was the original assertion.
- notepad0x90 2y agoI don't agree with the original assertion either. Yes, it was for various reasons, my point was it is not their responsibility to choose non-windows but rather the responsibility of Linux, mac ,sun,etc.. to make their product acceptable to the market.