In my first couple of jobs after college & 39; m & 39; gave a Unix workstation to work with, first workstation HP UX, SunOS box, and I could not have been more happy about this. After transferring to a new department in this same work, on m & 39; gave my first job ever Windows NT, I & 39; have been disappointed not to have my own Unix workstation.
Ever since I & 39; I had nothing other than & 39; workstations & 39; m Windows that has all the jobs that I& 39;ve been & 39;. And I & 39;& 39;ve had a bit of everything, since I am the employment contract over the past few years. Do not get me wrong, I am not advocating that every company to spend all their employees to Linux, but I & 39; asked why the services have been so slow to adopt & 39;. IT workers are minimal, if any, office work, so the lack of availability of Microsoft Office & 39; n is not a major concern for all documents or spreadsheets an IT worker might have to create, OpenOffice.org is more than sufficient.
Most large companies have adopted Java as their official language programming, at least as far as server-side development is concerned. In many cases, Java applications are deployed to Unix servers, but most developers are given workstations to work with Windows. Would it be unwise to give the developers an environment as close as possible that & 39; production environment?
I earn my salary writing Java applications EE, and I& 39;m pretty happy that my current client allows me to work using my Linux laptop, but many places do not allow & 39; No matter which device to be connected to their network.
Besides l & 39; evidence of economies in license fees, Linux offers other advantages d & 39; as & 39; absence of viruses and worms, and better overall security. Linux is no shortage of media, we have all seen the IBM commercials, and is frequently mentioned in IT magazines. Why has it not been more widely adopted? No & 39; I did not answer this question, I& 39;ll have to speculate.
One reason could be the perception that Linux is difficult to use. This could have been the case a few years ago, but today & 39; hui, with a modern desktop environment as KDE or GNOME, knowledge of Unix & 39; n & 39; is not really necessary & 39; use a Linux workstation, operation is basically point and click, not very different from Windows or OS X box.
Another reason could be a concern of Linux might not interact with the rest of the company & 39; (Microsoft based) IT infrastructure. With tools such as Samba, OpenOffice.org and Evolution (with the Ximian Connector), it should not be a concern.
Another reason could be the perception that Linux does not support enough hardware. & 39; C is somewhat true, but if you are careful when selecting your hardware, you can easily get a fully functional Linux. Most equipment unsupported & 39; n have no place in the workplace anyway, I am mainly talking here about USB devices like digital cameras and MP3 players.
Looks like most reasons Linux & 39; n is not in the course of & 39; adoption at the workplace are based on false assumptions and inaccurate perceptions. How can we promote & 39; adoption of Linux in the workplace? Seems to me, the answer lies in & 39; education and information & 39; " the powers that be " in computer services. Talking to managers & 39; terms that they understand, putting the & 39; emphasis on reducing costs and increasing productivity. Cost reduction because of the licence & 39; savings, & 39; increased productivity because less time is spent l & 39; application service packs and patches, and the chances d & 39 ; catching a virus drop to near zero.
Convincing managers to give Linux a try is easier said that & 39; to be done, I know, but Rome does & 39; is not built in one day.
Bookmark it:
No comments:
Post a Comment