4 ms·

Why, because companies force Windows on their users Using the word "force" seems odd to me and seems to indicate you have a bias against Windows which is based

by trezor 17y ago

Why, because companies force Windows on their users Using the word "force" seems odd to me and seems to indicate you have a bias against Windows which is based more on personal preference rather than rationality. It is a companies right to choose what platform they want to build their infrastructure on, and if you as a potential employee have an issue with that, nobody is forcing you to take the job. or because of the nifty group management features of Windows products? They are not merely nifty. For any organization of any noticeable size, it is essential. It streamlines IT management to the point that a smaller IT staff can concentrate on improving and expanding the business's infrastructure instead of merely maintaining it. You can not seriously argue that this is merely "nifty" and has little real world value? Anyway, not sure what your problem is. My problem with your comment is that it is simplistic, unreasoned, obviously false and and of no value what so ever. You might as well have replied "LOL NOT Linux!" and it would have made no difference. If I wanted that level of commentary I would go to digg.

Tichy 17y ago
"Using the word "force" seems odd to me" I guess then it is my turn to ask if you have ever worked in a company. Whatever. "obviously false and and of no value what so ever" Or maybe you are just too biased to understand what I actually said.
makecheck 17y ago
Yes, it probably streamlines I.T. management...it does nothing for employees (in my experience). But I'm assuming you've simply had better experiences with Windows than me. Let me tell you what my experiences have been... If smaller IT staffs can benefit from Windows features, then IT staffs can be almost eliminated by Unix features. On my campus over a decade ago, it took one man to administer the entire network of Unix machines. "The company" doesn't tend to make the decision so much as "the I.T. group", which is trusted by executives that really don't know any better. Since I.T. won't risk its livelihood on relative unknowns, nothing significant ever really changes. Why would they deploy something that takes one man to run, when they can have Windows? In most organizations, there are plenty of users who don't know any better. And there are users who hate Windows, but they've long given up the fight because if they complained all day long, they'd never get any real work done. And for this same reason, they're not about to look for another job: Windows is too prevalent. Sometimes, employees are extremely productive. These are the ones knowledgeable and efficient enough to deploy their own solutions in spite of I.T. offerings. They're the ones loading up Windows with a pile of open-source packages to make up for its pitiful tool set. Or, networking together a bunch of Linux laptops because they know nothing else will do the job. Despite the fact that their company has failed them with a poor status quo, these employees are more committed than anyone to do really good work. But even those people have limits; they eventually leave and form startups (that are free of Windows). Having failed its true talent, the company is left with the people who don't know or don't care how to be productive anymore. Mission accomplished?
rbanffy 17y ago
"It streamlines IT management to the point that a smaller IT staff can concentrate on improving and expanding the business's infrastructure instead of merely maintaining it." It's painfully obvious you never had to manage a virus/malware outbreak. See, Windows has GUI tools that will help you point-and-click your way into the illusion of maintainability. With Linux, you could buy something like Canonical's Landscape management tool or quite easily roll out your own, if you don't need all those bells and whistles. Locking down a Linux desktop is very simple. Keeping a Windows desktop secure is next to impossible.

by trezor 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago

"Using the word "force" seems odd to me" I guess then it is my turn to ask if you have ever worked in a company. Whatever. "obviously false and and of no value what so ever" Or maybe you are just too biased to understand what I actually said.

makecheck 17y ago

Yes, it probably streamlines I.T. management...it does nothing for employees (in my experience). But I'm assuming you've simply had better experiences with Windows than me. Let me tell you what my experiences have been... If smaller IT staffs can benefit from Windows features, then IT staffs can be almost eliminated by Unix features. On my campus over a decade ago, it took one man to administer the entire network of Unix machines. "The company" doesn't tend to make the decision so much as "the I.T. group", which is trusted by executives that really don't know any better. Since I.T. won't risk its livelihood on relative unknowns, nothing significant ever really changes. Why would they deploy something that takes one man to run, when they can have Windows? In most organizations, there are plenty of users who don't know any better. And there are users who hate Windows, but they've long given up the fight because if they complained all day long, they'd never get any real work done. And for this same reason, they're not about to look for another job: Windows is too prevalent. Sometimes, employees are extremely productive. These are the ones knowledgeable and efficient enough to deploy their own solutions in spite of I.T. offerings. They're the ones loading up Windows with a pile of open-source packages to make up for its pitiful tool set. Or, networking together a bunch of Linux laptops because they know nothing else will do the job. Despite the fact that their company has failed them with a poor status quo, these employees are more committed than anyone to do really good work. But even those people have limits; they eventually leave and form startups (that are free of Windows). Having failed its true talent, the company is left with the people who don't know or don't care how to be productive anymore. Mission accomplished?

rbanffy 17y ago

"It streamlines IT management to the point that a smaller IT staff can concentrate on improving and expanding the business's infrastructure instead of merely maintaining it." It's painfully obvious you never had to manage a virus/malware outbreak. See, Windows has GUI tools that will help you point-and-click your way into the illusion of maintainability. With Linux, you could buy something like Canonical's Landscape management tool or quite easily roll out your own, if you don't need all those bells and whistles. Locking down a Linux desktop is very simple. Keeping a Windows desktop secure is next to impossible.