Obviously, a bit of clickbait. Sorry.
I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn’t switch inputs immediately, and I thought “Linux would have done that”. But would it?
I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.
And that’s a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I’m perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)
But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the “things that just work”. Often they do “just work”, and well, with a broad feature set by default.
Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don’t?
Thoughts?
Funny someone downvoted you.
Clearly that person has never managed a 10,000 pc domain. Or hell, even a 10 pc domain in an SMB.
“The license is worth the cost” - I literally had this conversation with a peer not two hours ago. They have a client who’s previous IT management built a domain using Linux. Yes, you can do it, but I’d only do it if your IT is fully in-house and stable. This was an IT vendor. It saved them (the client) licensing…like $250 or so.
Imagine how quickly they’re going to burn $250 for a support issue because there’s something odd about how the Linux software isn’t exactly duplicating a windows DC? Or the next IT vendor doesn’t know what you implemented, so have to find out about which packages you used and how they work. (In this case they’re building a new domain and migrating everyone, because it’s currently unsupportable. Glad they saved $250 to spend $20k today).
You don’t use Linux desktop in a business to save licensing costs, unless you know the use-case inside and out. The first time your business has a need for something that doesn’t exist in Linux land, all those savings are gone as you build a virtual host for Windows, and deal with the lost productivity.
And I use Linux every day for things like Proxmox, UnRAID, TrueNAS, etc. Even there the difference between design approaches is really problematic.
Yes exactly. I love Linux. I build embedded systems devices with it. I run it on some of my rack appliances. But I’m also not a blind fan boi.
Windows made leaps and bounds into stability with XP. And since then it’s been a slow cog into being an excellent enterprise grade OS even with users bashing it all sorts of ways.
Most (all) of the complaints except price focus on money grabs and features for the docile masses. Forced updates, reboots, integrations, etc. My 80 year old relatives can use it and you know what it works great when they type into the “computer question box”. Click start menu and type. It brings up their files, folders, apps, answers to web questions, etc. That makes sense to someone who doesn’t understand a computer. It’s not pandering to the IT folk, it’s pandering to Karen.
If you’re IT folk, you can just spend a little more money on the proper license and all that goes away. Or you spend some time hacking the registry and get it for free usually.
The only BSODs I have had in the last decade are graphics driver related usually when pushing beta drivers hard. My Linux OS’s have had way more stability issues with less interaction.