You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
-1

[–] MRPockets 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I 100% discount any of the entries on the list which forcefully deployed linux to get away from MS's spying, that was done out of necessity, not want.

Ok, so which ones are those?

The rest of your list looks like server based, not desktop.

As I stated (and as my sources show), every entity on that list is using Linux desktop.

I stick to my assertions I stated, as the ones that did switch had MASSIVE training that went on and it cost them millions to switch, I remember hearing about it all.

So let's see the source(s) for that. Also, just because migrating systems costs money does not mean that one system is better or worse than the other; it just means that different systems are different and people require training to use something different.

At the time linux users touted it as the day Linux was taking over... and it never did, as usual.

Well, yes. Over-reaction to good news is a rather common trait in the Linux community...

The companies that have gone full linux did so to get away from proprietary software with possible backdoors in it for security reasons.

I don't know of a single company that claims backdoors are a reason they are migrating. Plenty of them cite improved security but they are usually referring to the low-risk of infection for Linux machines.