I posted something similar in another thread that got me thinking.

>>56391334
No one here have a job, we are all NEET, some of us pretend to be employed even if he isn't.
Congrats on being a fucking pink unicorn.

>>56391395
That's a real damn shame.

With the knowledge most /g/ users have they could be making a lot of money.

>>56391334
Congratulations m8,this is now a GPU/CPU subforum of /v/ no one here talks about here about real technology.
Maybe if you ask if you can run the new flavour game of the month you can get much replies.

Would be nice, but the MS buy-in is hard. Most of our clients all rely on some ancient piece of software which is Windows only. If you do all VMs and published apps then it makes sense to use Linux, but at least here most people still work locally with muh Office.

>>56391473
I should add the push against Linux is also strong when the entire IT staff was born and raised on Windows. I deploy Linux servers whenever I can, but always gets pushback because nobody knows Linux.

>>56391334

Oh hey, I was just about to respond to you in the other thread.

I've been at my company longer than anyone else, (only three years). Management hates Linux since it costs them more to hire Linux techs to administer the servers, and migration would realistically take 5 years or more. Nobody stays at this company long enough to oversee a project like that.

They also like to hire inexpensive, semi-skilled Windows folks who aren't even comfortable with Powershell. There's no way any of my existing team would be able to handle Linux.

Software is the other problem. Vendors like CCH, Wolters Kluwer, and other industry-specific folks just don't write client software for Linux. Retraining the entire enterprise to use a wholly different Free Software suite that only has forum-based community support is simply not going to happen.

>>56391473
Replacing the Office Desktop client was the hardest part. We purchased Office 365 Enterprise for the RHEL clients and users bitched for 3 weeks but eventually enjoyed it because the experienced frequent crashes in the Windows desktop application.

>>56391514
> I deploy Linux servers whenever I can, but always gets pushback because nobody knows Linux.

A lot of core applications have GUI front-ends now. Sure it helps to know bash but many administration tasks can be done almost entirely via GUI frontends, even with headless servers.\

>There's no way any of my existing team would be able to handle Linux.

Skill is definitely a problem but I've found that as long as Junior administrators understand the concepts they're able to get by.


>Software is the other problem. Vendors like CCH, Wolters Kluwer, and other industry-specific folks just don't write client software for Linux. Retraining the entire enterprise to use a wholly different Free Software suite that only has forum-based community support is simply not going to happen.

True, however, many companies are all going after the cloud meme. Many are creating web applications to replace their desktop applications, inadvertently supporting Linux in the process.

>>56391514
>I dont understand why anyone would want business continuity or vendor support

>>56391334
Why are you even having thin clients connect to VMs to browse a web page? I've only used (Wyse) thin clients about a decade ago, but they all had web browsers and could stream video which is what we needed them to do in a lab.

>>56391395
He might be even pinker, since he seems like an actual linux (or rather RHEL) shill. At least what he writes seems like made by a marketing professional. Not that I disagree.

>>56391674
Red Hat actually does a fantastic job with support. I can't speak for other enterprise Linux distros, though.

So they're still thin clients because I prefer having the ability to just provision VMs if users fuck them up.

Sure, I could go through and install an OS that just opens a webbrowser on ever client machine but ultimately it's harder to manage.


>>56391744
>marketing professional.

I wish.

>>56391788
>So they're still thin clients because I prefer having the ability to just provision VMs if users fuck them up.
How can a user fuck up a thin client? The Wyse terminals I had, had some file system driver which wouldnt allow anyone to write to the on board storage unless you went through a lot of bullshit and passwords. I can only assume modern ones still do too assuming you arent booting them off PXE which would be the way to go (and which I couldnt because reasons).

>Sure, I could go through and install an OS that just opens a webbrowser on ever client machine but ultimately it's harder to manage.
GPO login scripts are more difficult to manage than VDI? VDI has its place, but this doesnt sound like it.