I’m just tired. On the last post about having Linux at our work, many people that seems to be an IT worker said there have been several issues with Linux that was not easy to manipulate or control like they do with Windows, but I think they just are lazy to find out ways to provide this support. Because Google forces all their workers to use Linux, and they have pretty much control on their OS as any other Windows system.

Linux is a valid system that can be used for work, just as many other companies do.

So my point is, the excuse of “Linux is not ready for workplaces” could be just a lack of knowledge of the IT team and/or a lack of intention to provide to developers the right tools to work.

  • blkpws@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But you realize Google did this already? I don’t think they are wasting any money on Windows unless for market domination.

    • Tibert@compuverse.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Do you know how much money Google has? It’s enough to do whatever with that, even just keep the people away from competition.

      Why Google did that or if it’s even true? Not sure.

      However Google is a big tech which develops software for a multitude of platforms, even Linux. They work on their own Linux mod : Android.

      So they have all the people already in the company to do whatever they want on Linux.

      They also have specific needs which may not need windows.

      We however use excel and the advanced feature Power query and power Bi. So as long as a Foss alternative doesn’t get to the level of the current insanely powerful excel and power bi, we’ll be stuck on windows.

      • blkpws@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So because it’s Google means they waste their money? Nope, they just know why they are using Linux, and I’m sure they are spending less money than what they should if they used Microsoft/Apple technologies.

        • Tibert@compuverse.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure. But google does waste money if it brings them profit. It would be rather called an investment.

          However the example of Google is extremely bad, because it can only be applied to very large tech companies who already have people developing for Linux.

          It’s not a waste of money, it’s a bad example.

          • blkpws@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But other companies can do the same as Google did, I saw distributions maintained by 1 single person, what stops companies to do the same? I think that is the lack of knowledge of how Linux works. Google is a good example and could work for many big companies, small companies normally allows already to work with Linux or I have been lucky to find dev job positions on small companies that work with Linux already.

            • Tibert@compuverse.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They can’t really do that, mostly because it’s not “just 1 person”.

              There are a lot of costs going into maintaining the os, apps, custom software, and training for the employees.

              Google is giant, and has a huge amount of money. They can afford to spend the costs of training, modifying software, or developing other software for their needs if it reduces their future costs.

              A smaller company don’t have all those funds, they wouldn’t be able to invest as much into switching to Linux and maintaining the custom software or finding new software and training.

              When people switch to another software, there is also a period of low productivity, when these same people are still discovering the software, and cannot do everything as fast as before. That is also creating additional costs.