this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
157 points (98.2% liked)
Linux
48153 readers
732 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, they are and I never said they weren't management BS. Nevertheless management pays the bills, management makes the decision.
You're just saying what I said before...
Yes, but the end result is that nobody sane would even risk not using MS Office and that's what it is.
It depends, integration between MS products and services usually comes out of the box or working with minimal setup while with open-source solutions / Linux that isn't always the case. Also Windows sysadmins are usually cheaper because you can get more and they require less training to be "efficient" than Linux ones.
Yes but you still have do it and it has a cost. Simply going full Windows is cheaper at that point.
That's where we disagree : anybody sane would use Linux rather than windows. Windows usage is based on ignorance.
You have zero idea about Windows system integration if you think it comes out of the box. Or you live in America. In Europe, data safety is a concern, and it raises many, many problems with Windows "out of the box".
There are still use cases for windows. We have a predominately Linux environment (server and desktop), and a development team that build 80% of our operational software. That team are not fans of windows, but come across quite a few use cases where they have to use it because a 3rd party program won't run on Linux; or an external connection requires a windows service; or there is no comparable product available on Linux (MS Excel is the one thing keeping me on windows). Even ignorance plays a part, because end users can still have had limited access to technology over their lives and in Australia that usually means windows computers in schools. I deal with staff in their 20's and 30's who know nothing of how technology works outside of "push that button and the thing happens", if that button is a different colour, or shape, or location, shift is over, go home - they don't care why it's changed and definitely don't want to learn a new way to do it. We're somewhere between American data cowboys and the GDPR when it comes to data safety in Australia, which MS can be BS at and the integration burns more of our teams time than it should, but it's still a necessary evil - even if it's just when dealing with customers and vendors
If excel is keeping you on Linux, you're doing it wrong. The problem here is undoubtedly ignorance and nothing else.
If it's another program, wine made immense progresses these last years. You want to check about it.
Now, if you're saying Linux is not ready out of the box, that's true, but neither is Windows. Not if you have any important need. Windows is good for a customer, not for a company.
BTW Linux changed in the last ten years. It's not the neckbeard system it used to be.
Now that I have a work laptop, I've installed Linux on my home computer and it was simple and runs fantastically - actual results may vary as I work in IT and have grown up with a high tech involved family. However, the hill I'm happy to die on, is the fact that using Excel above a basic level in business, where information needs to be shared with non-technical staff cannot be replicated in Linux, and that Excel is still the best product to do this.
This is wrong about excel. Most thing excel do can be done with libreoffice. People are lazy to learn and convert their documents, and Microsoft does everything possible to make this harder.
Now you're showing your ignorance - your statement is empirically false.
Maybe you don't know what empirically means? Your ignorance is not a proof for anything. I know what I can do with libreoffice, and I am very mediocre with it. I've never seen an excel document that couldn't be done with libreoffice.
And I wrote most things that can be done with excel. Now, if you want something that can be debated, I posit that anything that can't be done in libreoffice calc but can be in excel is not worth doing in excel.
People saying libre office is a full replacement for Excel haven't seen what excel power users in offices can do. It's usually people who in another life would be programmers but for whatever reason they can't/won't make the leap out of excel and into full fat programming. Expecting these same people to convert to a free clone of excel that uses slightly different syntax and has less polish is a great way to lose a very valuable employee extremely quickly.
I absolutely love the environment that Linux affords one, and I would financially support the developers of the tools I rely on (which of course includes libre office) if I were in the financial position to do so, but I'm not delusional when it comes to the role Excel plays in the 21st century office. The business world is run from poorly backed up, undocumented Excel spreadsheets on anemic desktops, and that ain't changing anytime soon
I just looked up the definition of excel power user, and it's mostly stuff I deal with on a daily basis, so I guess I'm a power user.
That being said I am switching to libreoffice currently because I'm tired of proprietary bullshit. I also like the idea of being able to change libre for my needs if I want. I haven't seen any degradation other than a rough around the edges UI. What is libre lacking that MS has?
The uphill battle isn't technical it's social. The UI is a little less polished, the syntax is slightly different, and Excel has close to 30 years of market recognition. For 99% of excel users LibreOffice Math will absolutely cover their needs 100% with as much time spent figuring it out as they would spend figuring excel out. That last 1% of users however will complain that the syntax changed, they'll complain that they have to entirely redo the formulas in every one of their old spreadsheets, they'll feel undervalued and you better believe they're some of the most valuable people in the company because they learned long ago about working smarter and not harder, plus they know how to automate their work and are therefore much more efficient workers.