3 ms·

Enterprises don't do Linux. Enterprises hate sysadmins (i.e. the guys who control everything that managers don't have a control of and no clue about). Enterpri

by gesman 13y ago

Enterprises don't do Linux. Enterprises hate sysadmins (i.e. the guys who control everything that managers don't have a control of and no clue about). Enterprises can afford Windows + support. Enterprises love [Azure] cloud. Linux + Mono is a bit of a bait-and-switch candy from Ballmer.

tptacek 13y ago
As you might imagine of a high-end security consultancy, we work with a lot of big enterprises, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a single one that doesn't use Linux for line of business software development. Linux is nearly universal in enterprises.
iends 13y ago
This is an odd perspective to have. I'm fairly certain a large percentage of the Fortune 100 use linux (based on personal observation and experience).
- shaboon 13y ago
  off course they do.
fit2rule 13y ago
While you are getting downvoted, I have found your point of view to be applicable.. I've definitely encountered managers who have the point of view "we can just use Azure now, why do we need to pay a sysadmin" .. and as well, "Linux isn't professional - Microsoft is professional" is a standard refrain among the ignorant Executive classes, as well. So there is some truth to your statement, imho. I've recently had to port a .Net app to Mono so we can deploy it on Linux - in fact, we're doing everything possible to remove any dependency on Azure, because Azure is an atrocious trap for anyone looking to deploy productively. (e.g. can't clone an instance to .VHD without decomissioning and destroying it first..) Anyway, mono on Linux is distasteful, in my experience - there are too many dependencies and packages and libraries/subassemblies that just are not well described. Its as much about the affront of the language used in the Mono ecosystem as anything else. Unless you have the gumption to invest weeks in understanding the perverted terminology and strange architecture of the mono packages on Linux, you're going to be dissuaded by its complexity - especially if you're used to an open, well-describe taxonomy of the traditional Linux packages' way of doing things.

by gesman 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

As you might imagine of a high-end security consultancy, we work with a lot of big enterprises, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a single one that doesn't use Linux for line of business software development. Linux is nearly universal in enterprises.

iends 13y ago

This is an odd perspective to have. I'm fairly certain a large percentage of the Fortune 100 use linux (based on personal observation and experience).

shaboon 13y ago
off course they do.

fit2rule 13y ago

While you are getting downvoted, I have found your point of view to be applicable.. I've definitely encountered managers who have the point of view "we can just use Azure now, why do we need to pay a sysadmin" .. and as well, "Linux isn't professional - Microsoft is professional" is a standard refrain among the ignorant Executive classes, as well. So there is some truth to your statement, imho. I've recently had to port a .Net app to Mono so we can deploy it on Linux - in fact, we're doing everything possible to remove any dependency on Azure, because Azure is an atrocious trap for anyone looking to deploy productively. (e.g. can't clone an instance to .VHD without decomissioning and destroying it first..) Anyway, mono on Linux is distasteful, in my experience - there are too many dependencies and packages and libraries/subassemblies that just are not well described. Its as much about the affront of the language used in the Mono ecosystem as anything else. Unless you have the gumption to invest weeks in understanding the perverted terminology and strange architecture of the mono packages on Linux, you're going to be dissuaded by its complexity - especially if you're used to an open, well-describe taxonomy of the traditional Linux packages' way of doing things.