3 ms·

I suppose, but it should mostly be a quick matter to switch away from it.

mjr00 2y ago
I work with energy systems that are still running Windows Server 2003. Even upgrading to a new version of Windows would be a multi-year project; rewriting all of the customized, Windows-specific software to work on Linux would be incomprehensibly expensive.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mmooss 2y ago
People who don't know often imagine that, understandably. Recreating years of accumulated deployment and management in a new system is so expensive, it's usually impossible. In a real sense, you have to redo many years of work, all at once. And on top of that, you have to deploy it all at once - an immensely complex project that is almost certain to be a disaster. Also, in many ways, Windows management components (Active Directory, Group Policy, etc.) have no competition: First, you must have management systems: imagine you are deploying, configuring and managing a new application on 10,000 desktops, or just 1,000. You can't manually go to each desktop (just add up the time spent walking between desks!); you must automate it. Second, most user applications provide management components for Windows and for no other platform. If they have something else, it's often an afterthought (and goodness forbid they stop developing it and you are left 'to your own devices'). Finally, there's usually no reason not to use Windows. Why create these risks and costs? The users care only about the applications - these aren't their home computers; the IT department handles the OS, etc. The network effect of the Windows standard is hard to beat. There are exceptions: Some deployments are very simple and can be done on Linux, for example POS cash registers. Many applications now depend on web browsers, though even then you can have DRM and other issues, and you don't know what new application a user may need tomorrow. Macs are a standard in some places.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I forgot another aspect of migrating: After all that time and money and energy (including opportunity cost of taking people from other productive work), what do you have to show for it? Another directory services / management system that does the same thing as - or likely worse then - the original. All that work and at best you haven't moved an inch forward, you haven't helped the business' bottom line ... what did you do? How do you explain that to the CEO?
15charlimitdumb 2y ago
You could probably count the number of successful corporate migrations away from MS active directory on one hand
- mmooss 2y ago
  What major corporation doesn't use AD, excluding special cases (e.g., Apple might use their own, or do they use their Macs under AD)? What do they use?
  - belter 2y ago
    https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Acti... https://www.port389.org/ https://www.port389.org/
curt15 2y ago
The Linux MDM space is still pretty barren.

I work with energy systems that are still running Windows Server 2003. Even upgrading to a new version of Windows would be a multi-year project; rewriting all of the customized, Windows-specific software to work on Linux would be incomprehensibly expensive.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mmooss 2y ago

People who don't know often imagine that, understandably. Recreating years of accumulated deployment and management in a new system is so expensive, it's usually impossible. In a real sense, you have to redo many years of work, all at once. And on top of that, you have to deploy it all at once - an immensely complex project that is almost certain to be a disaster. Also, in many ways, Windows management components (Active Directory, Group Policy, etc.) have no competition: First, you must have management systems: imagine you are deploying, configuring and managing a new application on 10,000 desktops, or just 1,000. You can't manually go to each desktop (just add up the time spent walking between desks!); you must automate it. Second, most user applications provide management components for Windows and for no other platform. If they have something else, it's often an afterthought (and goodness forbid they stop developing it and you are left 'to your own devices'). Finally, there's usually no reason not to use Windows. Why create these risks and costs? The users care only about the applications - these aren't their home computers; the IT department handles the OS, etc. The network effect of the Windows standard is hard to beat. There are exceptions: Some deployments are very simple and can be done on Linux, for example POS cash registers. Many applications now depend on web browsers, though even then you can have DRM and other issues, and you don't know what new application a user may need tomorrow. Macs are a standard in some places.

mmooss 2y ago
I forgot another aspect of migrating: After all that time and money and energy (including opportunity cost of taking people from other productive work), what do you have to show for it? Another directory services / management system that does the same thing as - or likely worse then - the original. All that work and at best you haven't moved an inch forward, you haven't helped the business' bottom line ... what did you do? How do you explain that to the CEO?

15charlimitdumb 2y ago

You could probably count the number of successful corporate migrations away from MS active directory on one hand

mmooss 2y ago
What major corporation doesn't use AD, excluding special cases (e.g., Apple might use their own, or do they use their Macs under AD)? What do they use?
- belter 2y ago
  https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Acti... https://www.port389.org/ https://www.port389.org/

curt15 2y ago

The Linux MDM space is still pretty barren.