this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
82 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37800 readers
92 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Would Linux not be a better call? Both upfront and maintenance cost would be much lower without question.
BuT mACs ArE s0 pReTtY
In practice not really. Linux is great on servers or specialized workstations, but for general end users it just doesn’t work out. I could get into why, but it essentially boils down to support and compatibility.
I migrated our company from Windows to RedHat and Macs, but I wouldn’t put macOS on a server* nor would I put RHEL on a sales guy’s laptop.
*except things like build servers.
Annecodotally I have run it for 7 years including high end CAD. it has been much more stable and predictable than Windows.
I just installed Mint on my personal desktop. So far it's pretty solid and I'm not missing anything from windows. A little bit of glitchiness but not bad. And while I'm a developer, I'm not exactly a Linux power user - outside of basic directory commands, I have to Google anything.
All I'm saying is from the end user perspective it's fine other than Firefox tabs crash on me from time to time. Idk about from a provisioning or management standpoint.
Provisioning isn't bad, management isn't either. I actually prefer it in regards to Windows, but I am very biased. Ansible and Satellite is the chef's kiss IMO, but people make strong points against it. I personally use Fedora and macOS, I totally get the comfy feeling Linux can give.
Wouldn't a RHEL or similar distro which offers enterprise support be a good solution? Also, tech folks are very comfy on Linux as it's how the internet basically operates. A distro with enterprise support and fully functional GUI that's similar to windows seems like a solid solution to move from windows. What makes you hesitant to run RHEL on a sale employees computer?
Firstly, because the sales guys aren't technical. They are smart, but not computer smart. The value proposition of having them learn GNOME to do work would never fly with the suits. The big Cs would rather eat the capex and just give them Macs and never hear about it again. I also greatly enjoy not having to help the important ones with pressing technical issues. As far as GNOME has come, it isn't a replacement for Aqua or Explorer just yet. It's a death-by-a-thousand paper-cuts situation that still has a ways to go.
Additionally, workstation RHEL also isn't quite as bulletproof as the server variant. Such is the nature of the Linux graphics stack. We had a kiosk PC fail to boot to graphical target two weeks back because of an update that nuked dbus. It was just a Grafana kiosk so who cares really. Hasn't happened again since, but it shakes confidence you know? The servers, however, have been minimal in their issues. I think the only major issue we ran into this year was libvirt imploding on an on-prem server. The post-mortem was interesting on that one.
When your app vendors write their apps for Windows, no. You could try moving everything in Citrix or VDI, but then you're still running Windows and doing it with more costs.
Wine would allow for windows software to run on Linux. This would add additional potential software problems, but you wouldn't need help from only Apple to fix em.
Unsupported. And you know that.
The cost of the OS itself is insignificant.
You're still paying for the hardware, still paying for warranties, still paying for support, and most importantly, still paying for IT staff. The cheapest platform is generally going to be the one that requires the least support staff to manage.
IBM has found that Macs are significantly cheaper in the long run, owing to increased productivity and reduced support costs. See https://www.computerworld.com/article/3452847/ibm-mac-users-are-happier-and-more-productive.html
I'd love to. Personally I use CAD software that doesn't have a native Linux option or (good) FOSS alternative. Also, there's a lot of work done in Excel. No way my company is going to find a transition away from Windows to be attractive.
Maintenance cost would double with Linux. "Oh no my os updated because i clicked update when it said I had out of date apps and now my screen is just black when I boot"
Thats why you would have client machines on SUSE with autosnapshots for reverting back, or like proper IT don't give client machines the root password and take user out of sudoers group.
Honestly, in my 12 years as a software engineer. Not once have I had a work computer I didn't have full admin access to. It's just not great to work like that. Additionally, in my line of work, I always need some random piece of software like Microsoft Teams, slack, zoom, discord, etc, for a meeting. This isn't usual in Fortune 500 companies but in the smaller businesses I've been a part of, people will always have a new software requirement. Locked-down Linux clients might work for the slow sludge of mindless business that is Fortune 500 or large business but small businesses need to be able to do things quickly and stay flexible.
As.a tech company our systems are open for tinkering, but clients we do contract work for have fully locked down systems. No software install is possible, and software they do need has to be requested via their control center store app, if IT approves it it will show up in the software store. It is obviously as you say slower to turn things around, but IT ensures that attack footprint and system integriity is maintained. More companies are like this than not like this---when they have more than about 20 employees.
If you say so, I'm in the games industry and I've worked in about 40-100 employee studios for the last 10 years. Before that, I was at Comcast and T-Mobile as a software engineer. The games industry might just be an outlier because every employee is tech savvy.
Yeah, I think the difference besides tech savvy, is also development like jobs vs production work. production clients you want all the same and no user f@ckery