• testuserpleaseupvote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, wait until you get a job in most offices. Microsoft, Microsoft everywhere.

    BYOD with Linux? “We can’t install the company’s spyware on it, get that security risk out of here.”

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If an organisations’ security relies on the end device configuration there is no security.

      • ChickenAndRice@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For the user or the company? Assuming the user isn’t a moron with computers?

        Edit: guess im out of the loop as a contractor who generally only does BYOD with my linux machine

    • rmuk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you’re supporting ten thousand machines on four continents and confirming to twenty different data protection doctrines the last thing you need is some neckbeard rocking up demanding to store data in their unauditable homebrew fork of Haiku or some shit.

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is achieved with GPOs and agents is compliance, not security.

        In other words, company issued devices don’t protect the data, but they ensure conformity with relevant regulations and standards. Which is what most organisations actually care about.

        Many good IT people really do care about actual information security, but not those in charge.

        The result are devices that hinder some people’s work but provide questionable actual security.

        • egonallanon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Listen I work in IT and everyone is getting templeOS and they can like it. If gods own operating system isn’t good enough for you then you can clear off.

        • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People who make a living by configuring Microsoft products for company use won’t want to change.

      • Dr_Shrimp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Im all for privacy and obviously working where you want to but like really? Your unwilling to take a position if the desktop/laptop you use only for work doesn’t have an OS that’s acceptable? Regardless of pay/perks/etc you wouldn’t take a position where everything is perfect except you have to use their specified OS? This is genuine curiosity hopefully this doesn’t come accross as me trying to say I doubt you or your not entitled to your opinions but I just don’t get it, curious to understand why. What industry do you work in? It makes sense if a certain OS could make your job harder but I would be more worried about being able to use software that I want rather than OS at least at my current position.

        • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not parent commenter, but yes, an inappropriate OS makes the job a lot harder for software developers. Also, there is rarely a need to store data on the end user device, this is mostly done out of convenience and lack of knowledge on how to do things properly