I'm just tired. On the last post about having Linux at our work, many people that seems to be an IT worker said there have been several issues with Linux that was not easy to manipulate or control like they do with Windows, but I think they just are lazy to find out ways to provide this support. Because Google forces all their workers to use Linux, and they have pretty much control on their OS as any other Windows system.
Linux is a valid system that can be used for work, just as many other companies do.
So my point is, the excuse of "Linux is not ready for workplaces" could be just a lack of knowledge of the IT team and/or a lack of intention to provide to developers the right tools to work.
the only thing I'll say is the piece about "no viruses" would kinda go away if desktop Linux picked up at all. the security on a default Linux system is worse than macos and windows with substantial hardening efforts needed. the only reason viruses and other malware isn't common on Linux as is is because of the tiny user base.
with all this said, if enterprise use got more common, security would quickly become an important aspect.
Security through obscurity.
It's the same nonsense we used to hear about Macs not getting malware.
I'd argue the sandboxing you get from xdg desktop portals in applications installed from Flatpak and Snap is a lot better than windows giving full system access to an application when it asks. Keeping a program's access domain specific is a lot better security than Mac OS or Windows. Not to mention the security improvements from Wayland paired with Pipewire preventing applications access to things like the desktop, clipboard, and audio without explicit permission. And I haven't even mentioned SELinux yet. In an office setting you could certainly lock down a system pretty easily and prevent things like fishing attacks and even spear fishing. Windows and Mac OS are inherently security through obscurity because they are proprietary and rely on hackers to not know quite how they work, but Linux is resilient because it has more eyes on it and because distributions can modify the kernel specifically for added security like with the SELinux patches.
what obscurity.. is that?
It means that just because something doesn't get attacked as often, doesn't mean that's it's invulnerable.
Or rather that people treat something as if it's invulnerable because they haven't experienced an attack.
Linux doesn't get viruses because people running Linux have common sense.
https://nom.mom/post/255546
Just look at all those big brain Linux users
You mean the ones that go on endless circlejerks about their favourite distro or editor? Those users?
(and I'm speaking as a 25+ years user)
Everyone can have mistakes, I just think it's much harder to get infected with Linux.