It’s confusing. Thought it was something sandboxed.
This sounds like an Onion article headline
Gold medal of tautology. At this point, people still using windows voluntarily don’t deserve any better. And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.
And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.
Not a small thing to rip all the wires out of the walls. Moving to an entirely new office-wide OS is a heavy lift.
But they don’t have to make any OS “office-wide”. All they have to do is
- move from a centralized micro-management of every workstation to a scenario where users can be provided a prepared workstation, but may configure one themselves
- transition to a security policy that assumes every single workstation is insecure, and regulate the network traffic to allow only those protocols that are required for the business, protecting each machine from the next (this would prevent so many major security incidents where a single machine gets compromised and then the whole network is affected)
- provide central infrastructure as open protocols - IMAP (or POP3/SMTP), HTTPS, FTPS + file & printer sharing as desired
- enforce open formats within the enterprise
If necessary (assuming you have really irresponsible users), before authorizing users to set up their own machine, they can do a qualification check - or have the user’s line manager approve the “individual setup”.
This would enable power users productivity and even if you don’t change anything for the vast amount of users, it would pay off rapidly. If you can move regular workstations away from the bloatware that is Windows, you would boost the overall productivity immensely.
Specifically, what I am arguing against is:
- locking users into an eco-system for any kind of service (e.g. MS Exchange servers, MS Active Directory)
- outsourcing your IT competences to Microsoft (because let’s be real, that’s the actual reason IT departments go for Microsoft: corporate IT is outsourced as a service, this means lowest bidder, and the lowest bidder will happily take Microsoft’s offer to take care of any “real” issues and only provide a really, really dumb and helpless first level support)
- having tons of services listening on every workstation that no one ever needs (just open your windows control panel (while it’s still around) and check out all the running services, of which you could disable > 50% if Windows would let you, without impacting the operational state of your machine) and each one presenting a vulnerable interface to the network
Ah yes, the always shitty, “I know everything because I am that business and person all the time and better than them.” Shit fucking comment.
At this point people who are like, “just use Linux” sound like, “just buy an iPhone.” The only difference is the Linux people don’t end up actually knowing shit about enterprise environments
I will get down voted because Lemmy is an Echo Chamber with people circle jerking their self justified opinions.
But seriously fuck off, dude. Anyone that literally says this doesn’t know shit about an actual environment.
Let me know when fucking Oracle’s shitty products work better on Linux boxes over Windows when their own fucking Linux products don’t work. I will go to the business I am a part of right now and let them know we should just hire you to make all of our financial and enterprise setup choices because you said so.
You have zero reading comprehension. Good job wasting your time on a pointless rant.
I hope they’ve made it easier
This is not confusing. AT ALL!
