• V ‎ ‎ @beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Annecodotally I have run it for 7 years including high end CAD. it has been much more stable and predictable than Windows.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • V ‎ ‎ @beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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?

        • V ‎ ‎ @beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Banzai51@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • JillyB@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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