Not a choice in most business settings. Windows servers, Microsoft cloud, Windows workstations, and a 365 to complement. You have a better, equally integrated solution? Because, if so, I’d love to hear it.
I’m transitioning my (very small) office to OnlyOffice and OwnCloud this summer. I have a lot of autonomy so I can basically just make the decision.
I’m choosing OnlyOffice over LibreOffice because it’s a more similar to 360 an I will have to help the staff with very little tech literacy through the transition.
We’re not ready to transition the OS just yet (and may not be able to), but as the hardware ages, we may change over some of the less essential systems. Probably Ubuntu or Zorin.
Very cool! I hope it’s a successful change.
Look into onlyoffice. Last I heard, it was Russian based software, so it might be risky. It might not be, though.
It’s main development is in Russia and some people have a problem with that, but the code is open, so it seems far fetched that there is anything malicious in there. I’m not an expert by any means, though.
I’m with you. I use it on the iPad. But a part of me is a little cautious. I don’t think the devs would do anything nefarious, but Russia is Russia.
The integration is Microsoft’s monopoly behaviour which anti-trust organisation no longer put a stop to. There are alternatives but they struggle to match the level of integration Microsoft can achieve owning and making all of the office suite.
However European local and regional government have been moving over to Office alternatives such as Collabora, Onlyoffice and Libreoffice. Collabora & Onlyoffice are designed for online use and collaboration.
There are also alternatives to the Exchange email system, with Nextcloud one of a few that can either be bought as a service or self deployed by organisations and individuals.
The biggest benefits are total control and privacy of data, plus better cost. Microsoft clients don’t generally get any of this, with the increasing push to integrate online services and try to forcably up-sell by bundling in stuff customers don’t need but have to buy to get the things they want or need. Microsoft rely on inertia and vendor lock-in; once you become dependent on their services it makes it seem impossible to get out and move to a new system.
You’re the employee? Why would it matter to you what they use? Do your job, go home.
For many reasons. One of which is that I still have to use it, and enter my PII into it. If I can convince them to use less of these, why not do that?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I mean, we do. Linux OS, Libre Office, Apache servers, Linux Cloud Service of Choice, PostgreSQL.
But you need techs familiar with those systems and businesses eager to implement Linux at a foundational level early on in the company’s development. Because a lot of businesses outsource their IT early on, and because a lot of end-user hardware has Microsoft pre-installed, and because the major IT outsourcers all get big kickbacks from Microsoft to be the default solutions, and because Microsoft has embedded itself at the university level at a global scale, and because Microsoft has successfully lobbied itself as the premier US contractor of choice for federal and state IT setups, it can be harder to find professionals willing and able to configure a Linux environment. This is assuming the company founders even think to ask for alternatives.
That’s not to say it never happens. FFS, some of the biggest competitors to Microsoft - Amazon and Google most notably - have relied on Linux/PostgreSQL architecture to keep their overhead low and their integrations non-exclusive. But they’re exceptional precisely because they laid the groundwork early.
The problem isn’t that integrated solutions don’t exist. The problem is that most CTOs don’t embrace them early on in the company’s development and find themselves trapped in the Microsoft ecosystem well after the point a transition would be economical.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Some of your emphasis is a little backwards. In the cloud computing environment, Amazon is bigger than Microsoft, and windows isn’t even particularly significant. Azure primarily provides Linux infrastructure instead of Windows. AWS is bigger in the government cloud sector than Microsoft.
For servers, Linux is hands down the os of choice. It’s just not even close. Where Microsoft has an edge is in business software, like Excel, word, desktop OS and exchange. Needing windows server administrators for stuff like that is a pain when you already have Linux people for the rest of your stuff which is why it gets outsourced so often. It’s not central to the business so no sense in investing in people for it.
Microsoft isn’t dominating the commercial computing sector, they’re dominating the office it sector, which is a cost center for businesses. They’re trailing badly in the revenue generation service sphere. That’s why they’ve been shifting towards offering their own hosting for their services, so you can reduce costs but keep paying them. Increased interoperability between windows and Linux from a developer standpoint to drive people towards buying their Linux hosting from them, because you can use vscode to push your software to GitHub and automatically deploy to azure when build and test passes.
Being on the cost side of the ledger is a risk for them, so they’re trying to move to the revenue side, where windows just doesn’t have the grip.