IT guy here, the choice of what to ship on the corporate desktops/laptops is a lot more naunced than that.

Are there users in the organization that use Excel heavily? Other windows-only software heavily? If the answer is yes then you're looking at complicating support instantly because now you have 2 separate fleets of workstations that each require different tooling to manage and you either have to have a helpdesk that can be trained to handle questions for both or have different teams to handle each which is more opportunities for helpdesk requests to be miscommunicated, lost, etc. and adds some time to the ticking process. You also have to decide how users are selected for which they get. If you leave it up to the users they'll all choose what they're used to and you'll just get a handful of weirdos which make the cost of allowing it likely higher than it's worth. But if you force it on people by team you run the risk of someone having dual roles or covering duties and being largely hamstrung when they can't use the windows software needed for the other role. Does this create a 2 tier system where users given the Linux workstations have less upward mobility? Or are you potentially creating future hassle where your Linux users will randomly have to come to IT to have their computer switched because they gained a duty that requires Windows software (which is a ton of lost productivity while they get things set how they like)

You also have to now maintain 2 sets of management tooling since generally Active Directory and Linux tend to be a pain to mix. This also means 2 different streams of vulnerability tracking and patch tracking, and 2 different streams of testing if you hold back updates for testing before deployment. And 2 different attack surfaces to keep secure for audits and red teams.

But let's suppose you find that absolutely everybody in your organization can be moved to Linux as nobody uses software that won't work on Linux natively. Awesome this is the best case scenario for Linux workstations in the office. What are the long term ramifications? Are you potentially limiting your options for vendors or contracts your organization can take on? Are some of your employees working at reduced productivity potential because they aren't using the best tool for the job?

These are the considerations that have to be made, and argued politically for Linux to be deployed to user workstations in the office. Extremely similar conversations have historically had to happen (and continue to have to happen!) within IT departments to move things away from Windows Server. A bank I worked at just a year ago was so heavily invested in the Windows server ecosystem that they had Windows server in places it really shouldn't have been and the choice to use Windows Server actually was a hindrance.

I think in the long run it has a chance. Linux has gotten so much better on the desktop in just the last 5 years, plus with the move to webapps across the board (not to mention kids in school right now learning on ipads and Chromebooks and never touching a Windows machine) I'm sure the decision will slowly get easier and easier, but right now, there's very limited opportunities to make Linux workstations happen in a big way in the corporate world, and I don't forsee that changing in the next 5 years

Two things keep Windows around. Office/Exchange and remote management. Nothing really works that well in any other ecosystem.

As someone who works in IT…my Windows Desktop and Linux Desktop guys are pretty good. Linux desktop guys are chill as hell and got a legit greybeard to fall back on. My windows desktop guys are brilliant, masters of their crafts.

Unfortunately my windows server team is stretched far too thin and my Linux server team are morons.

But I digress.

The reason why the actual UX sucks isn’t their fault, it’s because of the security team, who impose a lot of restrictions above and beyond what we need for regulatory reasons. But that’s what happens when their most technical guy is a perfectionist and their manager is more politician than technician.