Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
I have reinstalled Ubuntu 22 today and I hate it. Only supported release (you can have derivates). And after that, Chrome is the only supported browser, Workspace One for maintenance, Carbon Black as spying blackbox. Evrything what makes Linux the best is crippled for me by incompetence of the admins. My loophole is that Guix is in distribution :)
My solution is to host a virtual machine with my dev workstation, and use Windows or Mac for business admin stuff like email, slack, etc.
Our software is officially supported on Windows and Linux. For some reason our chief product uses a Mac, so we support that unofficially. It can be quite a hassle to keep our code compatible on those platforms and Build Bot often gets angry when I open a pull request, but boy is it nice to be able to use whatever OS I like for development!
My current employer is a first for me:
Workstations/laptops at my current job in order of popularity: nixos, arch, macos. Windows is around 2%.
It's funny working at a company that doesn't allow Linux on a workstation, but is also actively developing and deploying tons of Linux-based products...
I think the real reason is that their MDM cant lock down a Linux machine the way it locks down a Windows or Mac machine...
We added a second disk and installed Linux on an encrypted partition. BIOS was not locked so we could dual boot.
When we return the machines we remove the disk.
I've had Linux 3 jobs in a row so I've been lucky that way, it usually helps to match production so that's a good argument for it.
we not only allow it, we enforce it. windows not allowed in my company
Same at my company.
My favorite bit was when the Microsoft rep sent a PDF explaining how much the company would save from tech support to the CFO, bypassing the CTO they were communicating with.
And the CFO shared the whole thing publicly for the entire company to laugh at.
Iβm still surprised people still use the term sysadmin.
What term would you use?
I have always been partial to 'sysop' but I like sysadmin too.
I miss the term sys admin.
Now itβs always something like βdevops scrum hardware masterβ or some bullshit.
SRE is what all the cool kids are saying these days
nerd
Techwizard
I'm glad that I've never had to rely on windows at work. It's been linux all the way even when it still had a lot of rough edges.
It was still way ahead of WfW or 95 though.
I don't have windows allowed on my job, thanks god
The build team will not allow a single line of Windows code to infect their pipelines
I work with data management / data brokering at a university. I am not allowed to have a Linux machine. I have to use a virtual environment.
We don't even have Firefox at work.
Only options are Edge and Chrome.
Blame their DoH for killing FF deployment in the enterprise. Companies don't like not being in charge of their DNS traffic. DoT is better from corporate POV as that can all be blocked or redirected based on the port, not so much DoH which uses the same port as normal web traffic.
Nah, companies can just disable DOH if they want using GPOs.
https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/v5.8/docs/index.md
Those are definitely acronyms.
It's simple, cost. Supporting multiple DE's is expensive. And provides little or no benefit to the company.
It may work at a small company with tech savvy users (like the ones commenting here). But ultimately at a normal large business, is nothing but a hassle that at best makes a few employees happy.
I work for a large company that issues Windows laptops or MacBooks to employees depending on the work requirements. Most developers I know there use Macs, and I've only heard of 1-2 cases where programmers needed to get a Windows machine because they were working on a particular project.
So this is def YMMV territory.
Those few employees are probably going to all be developers, and despite there being a bunch of mathematics and engineering involved, being a developer is very much a creative process. Similarly, I wouldn't begrudge a digital artist for wanting to use a Mac to do their work.
If a developer is asking for a thing, they're not asking for it because they've suddenly developed a nervous tic. There's typically a reason behind it. Maybe its because they want to learn that thing to stay relevant, or explore it's feasibility, or maybe it's to support another project.
I used to get the old "we don't support thing because nobody uses thing" a lot. The problem with that thinking is that unless support for whatever thing immaculates out of nowhere it'll just never happen. And that's a tough sell for a developer who needs to stay relevant.
I remember in like 2019 I asked for my company to host git repos on the corporate network, and I got a hard no. Same line, there wasn't a need, nobody uses git. I was astounded. I thought my request was pretty benign and would just sail right through because by that point it was almost an industry standard to use git. I vented about it to some devs in another department and learned that they had a system with local admin attached to the corporate network that somehow IT didn't know about. They were using that to host their repos.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if keeping employees happy is too expensive, then you gotta at least be aware of the potential costs of unhappy employees.
My last employer had several thousand employees. Some of the IT guys knew Linux, but it wasn't anywhere in the organization. I managed to convince them to let me install Linux on my desktop. They said sure, with the provision that I was not allowed to have a single issue. If I had an issue, they'd format it back. It was a fantastic last 8-9 years at work, as far as computer use went.
My usual reply to said employees is "if you know how to install and configure a Linux distro, you probably also know how to solve your own problems". Everything else is pretty much deployed over AD, so if you can get to the point where you need admin creds to hook to the DCs, then do whatever you like.
Eventually, all of them failed to even get close to being a part of the AD DC and that is where the story ended.
learned that they had a system with local admin attached to the corporate network that somehow IT didn't know about. They were using that to host their repos.
That's called shadow IT and is a huge security risk.
We do know about stuff like this... we just decide to turn a blind eye about it since we know who is using it and why they're using it.
But if things get out of hand and we notice weird things happening, then yes, we will act on it and will "know about it".
Cisco now supports developers running Linux feiw
Yes because developers don't call tech support when they've accidentally deleted the Outlook icon from their desktop.
A long time ago I was required to use Windows. So I converted my computer using VMware P2V and just ran Windows in a VM. I swear it ran better and faster. Want really Linux freedom but it was fun.