canopic jug writes:
Bryan Lunduke at Network World calls out what other mainstream media have been too timid, or bought out, to call out. He starts by pointing out that choosing Microsoft Windows for your organization should get you fired and that if you haven't already replaced Windows, across the board, you absolutely stink at your job.
There. Finally the topic is broached in mainstream media and a proper discussion can now start among decision makers who can arrange complete migrations to GNU/Linux, Chrome/Linux, one of the BSDs, or a combination of them.
As Microsoft security problems continue to escalate since even the pre-networked, MS-DOS days, managers and front-line grunts will find themselves increasingly culpable for selecting unviable software, such as Microsoft Windows. If they wish to pay big bucks for maintenance, there are plenty of companies around to participate in the money. Canonical, Red Hat, M:Tier are just a sampling.
[Ed. Note: I debated whether or not to run this story — in some respects it's just the Windows vs *nix argument all over again. Also, there are proprietary programs which are critical for certain industries which currently only run on Windows. On the other hand, gaining a mention like this in the more mainstream media, does that mean we are approaching an inflection point? Witness the increased displeasure with Windows 10's telemetry and the difficulty in completely blocking it. What programs do you use that are only available on Windows? What keeps you from moving to another OS? --martyb]
Go full on OSS geek on her and change the branding in the LibreOffice source next time MS updates Office. Then start a pool on how long it takes her to figure out she's not using a MS product.
The first time she opens a Word doc.Libreoffice works okay for most of its goals. The one part where it fails hard is compatability with Microsoft's office suite. It's not that you cannot open files, the problem is that they don't look like how they were intended (both MSOffice -> LO and LO -> MSOffice). Kind of a death sentence for a WYSIWYG editor.
This doesn't matter if you don't need to open the"other side"'s documents. Otherwise, why risk a switch?Why put in effort to get worse interaction with (basically) the rest of the world?
I was thinking something along similar lines, not nearly as deep though. I had a user that refused to switch from Internet Explorer to Firefox, despite a directive from corporate for everyone to do so. I simply changed the Firefox desktop icon on his PC from the Firefox standard to the big blue E. Next time I checked he was using Firefox and I never heard a complaint about it.