500
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
500 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59366 readers
1272 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For personal computing, sure. For enterprise environment, eh not really.
With the amount of money corporations and governments have spent on Microsoft — the last decade alone — they could have filled the gaps in linux and the annual cost for ITSM would be significantly cheaper. Instead they've spent more and have grown far more dependent on proprietary software, they don't own or control, to manage their core business ops and data; the longer their dependence on SaaS, the more they'll pay.
Yep, Imagine how good the software would be oif we had all the governments and enterprise paying into open source instead of Microsofts pocket.
Can you imagine a world where public money was only spent for the public good? What a world!
The only (larger) enterprises that insist "we depend on Windows" are those with shitty corporate IT :)
And several governments from various countries and at various levels (municipal, state, federal)
there's
Even worse: governments using Windows are absolutely giving the US services direct access to all their confidential files & communication.
It's an adoption problem. My company only supports windows because all our customers use windows. All our customers use windows because all their vendors only support windows.
Potential solutions:
I get that there are solutions to the problem, but there's no way a team of 10 can port 35 years of win32 dependence and keep the business solvent. Maybe incrementally, over the course of 10-15 years. We're just now migrating off of .NET 4.8 because we use WCF so much.
Depending on the implementation, WCF can be really easy to adapt to new clients. If you wanted to support Linux, macOS, or web, you just implement the part of your service that make sense for those platforms.
I obviously don't know your app at all, but it sounds like a 10 person dev team could probably build a new app in just a few months since the backend is already there. It wouldn't have all of the features, but generally speaking it's a lot easier to rebuild an app than refactor an existing one. Whether that would bring value is another concern entirely.
That's why I put the (larger) there - if you are a small company maybe you can not keep up a separate office infrastructure from your deployment / test systems in case of SW development. If you are a large enterprise and use Microsoft infrastructure, then either the people making the decisions in IT are getting a lot of bribes, or they are really really stupid :) Or both.
And I mean that absolutely without anger against Microsoft, and purely in terms of security nightmare and waste of office productivity because using a contemporary windows system wastes so much more time of any given user that each desk worker probably loses 20-70% productivity compared to a lean operating system (and that would include something like Windows 2000 / XP).
Yes corpo IT doesn't have the skills other than buy the easiest options and raise tickets to vendors.
Those people choose to live the techno-dystopia for the sheer convenience of it.
They will just copy whatever the rest of the industry does.
It's funny how you think that every single company just lets their IT choose what the best course of action is. Sometimes management just doesn't care.
Competent IT with good bullshitters can steer their way to anything but my current take is that they can't because they don't even know any other way except for the lies and manipulations crammed in by certification peddlers and proprietary software salesmen
Or if you're into online gaming.
I have to fend off linux nerds with a bat. The bottom line is "that's cool and all but there are a lot of things that I can't do with linux and I'm not willing to make that big of a change"
What are the issues? Genuine question.
Not the person you replied to but they’re probably talking about anti-cheat
I heard there were issues with those, but not sure on the specifics
Most games with anti-cheat refuse to run on Linux even if the anti-cheat itself supports it. And some anti-cheats just don’t work on Linux anyway, I believe the ones that do only support it by just not running when they detect they’re on Linux. If you’re interested you can check which games are supported here: https://areweanticheatyet.com/ but bear in mind it could change at any time (for example Rockstar broke GTAV a few weeks ago)
This is great, thanks for that link!
Pretty much every multiplayer online game will at best lose its shit and not run, and at worst, ban you instantaneously if you try to access it with Linux
And the main issue there tends to be anti-cheat, and that's a chicken-and-egg problem:
The more people we can convince to use Linux as a daily driver, the more game devs will notice and the more likely they are to support Linux. We've seen a lot of game devs make an effort since the Steam Deck became a thing, and it's always getting better.
It's totally fine to dual boot, but spending some amount of time gaming on Linux (where possible) helps send the message that Linux support is wanted and is profitable.
What are the issues? Genuine question.