Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs

dennis · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 7

"Robert Heller" <heller DeleteThis @deepsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6L2dnaHX0ueKU23XnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@posted.localnet...

8>

> Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs. Somebody
> is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

Aragorn · External Since: Feb 22, 2009 Posts: 13

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis@home wrote...

> Of course there is another explanation..
> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
other Windows PC these days. <grin>

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

Aragorn wrote:

>On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
>identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>
>> Of course there is another explanation..
>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

>
>This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
>hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
>other Windows PC these days. <grin>

Cool

smr · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 3

Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>> smr wrote:

>>>>> It's always better to slowly shift people's perceptions of things -
>>>>> "this is something we've been using to do some jobs in the company" as
>>>>> opposed to "this is the new thing head office forced on us." But that
>>>>> first box is a difficult issue - somebody needs to administrate that
>>>>> single CUPS server.
>>>> Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs.
>>>> Somebody
>>>> is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...
>>>
>>> My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
>>> gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
>>> "that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
>>> installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
>>> machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.
>>>
>>> I would*n't* say that they would hire a new Linux admin at *that* point,
>>> I think that's something the existing staff would handle. I'm saying
>>> that at that point the existing staff need to administrate all of the
>>> systems they had before as well as this new box that runs an entirely
>>> new system - so what you're left with is relying on the current staff to
>>> learn to professionally administrate a new operating system for a single
>>> machine while doing their normal jobs at the same time. I'm saying
>>> that's off putting to administrators. It's great once you start moving
>>> lots of machines over to Linux and you can set up scripts that handle
>>> lots of machines at once and that's where it really shines but it's
>>> dealing with the hassle of the test machine that's a stumbling block.
>>
>>
>> I'm thinking that more often, that first Linux box is being maintained
>> mainly by whoever is using it, If that first user is not mainly a
>> sysadmin, he asks permission to use Linux, and they say okay, but you
>> have to maintain it yourself. Same thing happens if he is mainly a
>> sysadmin, but then it might be that the guy was hired specifically as
>> somebody who knows Linux and as somebody who can expose the other
>> admins and their bosses to the practice of running Linux. That would
>> be followed by incremental steps toward Linux by the company, stuff like:
>> migrating the servers, switching some users to cross-platform FOSS
>> apps such as OpenOffice, migrating one department as an experiment,
>> and hiring more admins and other workers who have experience in both
>> worlds.
>
> LOL, it's obvious no one here has been through any conversion effort
> from one platform to another in any shape form or fashion.
>
> This is some kind of a total joke here, and it's two home users
> conversing with each other.

I thought it was two people talking in generalities (an idea or
conclusion having general application) about the social pressures
applying to people bringing Linux into their business but if you have
specific details of what we're talking about I'd love you to add to the
conversation.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

smr wrote:

>Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
>
>I thought it was two people talking in generalities (an idea or
>conclusion having general application) about the social pressures
>applying to people bringing Linux into their business but if you have
>specific details of what we're talking about I'd love you to add to the
>conversation.

You can't discern that a 'nym like "Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro'
OLAY!" is a worthelss troll?

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 1070

On 2009-11-04, Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! <Toro1 DeleteThis @toro1.net> wrote:
>
>
> smr wrote:
>> Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> smr wrote:

[deletia]

> So no, no one is going to start doing something out of the norm, like a
> rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux and
> blew smoke into someone's ear about switching to an all Linux platform
> from a MS platform, and all of the other departments within a
> corporation converts to the Linux platform. That's simply not going to
> happen.

No. It's going to be the CTO or CIO that's doing the pushing.

That horse left the barn a LONG time ago. And yes Linux did first go
in the back door of corporations being deployed by individual admins
on an as needed basis to deal with the usual corporate burdens.

That was about 10 years ago. Things are a lot different now.

Linux hasn't been "outside the norm" in a long time.

--
If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
MacOS X on a DELL! / | \

Kholmann is aka little 'P · External Since: Oct 08, 2009 Posts: 13

smr wrote:
> Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> smr wrote:
>
>>>>>> It's always better to slowly shift people's perceptions of things -
>>>>>> "this is something we've been using to do some jobs in the company" as
>>>>>> opposed to "this is the new thing head office forced on us." But that
>>>>>> first box is a difficult issue - somebody needs to administrate that
>>>>>> single CUPS server.
>>>>> Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs.
>>>>> Somebody
>>>>> is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...
>>>> My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
>>>> gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
>>>> "that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
>>>> installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
>>>> machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.
>>>>
>>>> I would*n't* say that they would hire a new Linux admin at *that* point,
>>>> I think that's something the existing staff would handle. I'm saying
>>>> that at that point the existing staff need to administrate all of the
>>>> systems they had before as well as this new box that runs an entirely
>>>> new system - so what you're left with is relying on the current staff to
>>>> learn to professionally administrate a new operating system for a single
>>>> machine while doing their normal jobs at the same time. I'm saying
>>>> that's off putting to administrators. It's great once you start moving
>>>> lots of machines over to Linux and you can set up scripts that handle
>>>> lots of machines at once and that's where it really shines but it's
>>>> dealing with the hassle of the test machine that's a stumbling block.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that more often, that first Linux box is being maintained
>>> mainly by whoever is using it, If that first user is not mainly a
>>> sysadmin, he asks permission to use Linux, and they say okay, but you
>>> have to maintain it yourself. Same thing happens if he is mainly a
>>> sysadmin, but then it might be that the guy was hired specifically as
>>> somebody who knows Linux and as somebody who can expose the other
>>> admins and their bosses to the practice of running Linux. That would
>>> be followed by incremental steps toward Linux by the company, stuff like:
>>> migrating the servers, switching some users to cross-platform FOSS
>>> apps such as OpenOffice, migrating one department as an experiment,
>>> and hiring more admins and other workers who have experience in both
>>> worlds.
>> LOL, it's obvious no one here has been through any conversion effort
>> from one platform to another in any shape form or fashion.
>>
>> This is some kind of a total joke here, and it's two home users
>> conversing with each other.
>
> I thought it was two people talking in generalities (an idea or
> conclusion having general application) about the social pressures
> applying to people bringing Linux into their business but if you have
> specific details of what we're talking about I'd love you to add to the
> conversation.

You know the day-to-day business needs of computing for a department
within a corporation doesn't center around office products, which is
only a very small fraction of the department or the corporation
computing business needs.

A department within a corporation in order for the department to do
day-2-day business operations has enterprise level in-house written and
3rd party software solutions that are platform and business specific.

Enterprise solutions like payroll, inventory, accounts payable, accounts
receivable, general ledger, purchase order, insurance, transportation
needs to move product, etc, etc just to name a few and many other such
specialized applications that are being used within a corporation.

The enterprise solutions are also interfacing with each other, and they
are running on workstations, Web servers with data being persisted to
database servers, etc.

So no, no one is going to start doing something out of the norm, like a
rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux and
blew smoke into someone's ear about switching to an all Linux platform
from a MS platform, and all of the other departments within a
corporation converts to the Linux platform. That's simply not going to
happen.

Linux may find a little niche need within a corporation that's on the
MS platform, just like client/server has a niche needed within a
corporation that has day-2-day business needs centered around the IBM
mainframe iron horse.

Ignoramus8745 · External Since: Nov 04, 2009 Posts: 1

Keep something in mind here: we often talk about how Linux is
installed in companies without blessing of senior management, and then
makes some progress.

Here we have a different story, which is that companies are now
requiring people they hire to have Linux knowledge. This is now a
matter of corporate policy, as opposed to some low level enthusiasts.

i

Mr. Majestic · External Since: Nov 04, 2009 Posts: 5

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2009-11-04, Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! <Toro1.DeleteThis@toro1.net> wrote:
>>
>> smr wrote:
>>> Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>> smr wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
>> So no, no one is going to start doing something out of the norm, like a
>> rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux and
>> blew smoke into someone's ear about switching to an all Linux platform
>> from a MS platform, and all of the other departments within a
>> corporation converts to the Linux platform. That's simply not going to
>> happen.
>
> No. It's going to be the CTO or CIO that's doing the pushing.

No, that would be the senior staff members in IT department making
justification to managers, managers making justification to the IT
director, the IT director making justification the to CIO or CTO, CIO
or CTO making justification VP's heading departments, and then CIO or
CTO with VP's making justification to the corporation president.

JEDIDIAH you are a dumb home-user that has never seen it happen.

>
> That horse left the barn a LONG time ago. And yes Linux did first go
> in the back door of corporations being deployed by individual admins
> on an as needed basis to deal with the usual corporate burdens.

How would you know since you never had a job in IT in a corporation as a
home-user?
>
> That was about 10 years ago. Things are a lot different now.
>
> Linux hasn't been "outside the norm" in a long time.
>

I wouldn't trust anything you had to say with you being home-user as far
as I could toss a building somewhere.

OLAY!

Mr. Majestic · External Since: Nov 04, 2009 Posts: 5

Ignoramus8745 wrote:
> Keep something in mind here: we often talk about how Linux is
> installed in companies without blessing of senior management, and then
> makes some progress.

Yeah, I saw that happen once where the IT director had smoke blown into
his ear about Linux from the son he never had he hired out of Toco Bell,
development effort made on Linux, IT director blew off senior staff who
was MS, IT director didn't have the backing from VP of plant operations
and he deployed Linux solutions in the plants.

Needless to say it was a failure, the VP slit the IT director's throat
in front of the CIO, VP's and president. And the IT director was
quickly demoted and kicked to the side.
>
> Here we have a different story, which is that companies are now
> requiring people they hire to have Linux knowledge. This is now a
> matter of corporate policy, as opposed to some low level enthusiasts.
>

You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux
initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the
budget.

You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to
another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped
in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there
are other stake holders involved.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

Mr. Majestic wrote:

> You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux
> initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the
> budget.
>
> You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to
> another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped
> in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there
> are other stake holders involved.

Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You
like building straw men that you can knock down?

Balwinder S Dheeman · External Since: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 23

On 11/04/2009 02:55 PM, dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Robert Heller" <heller.TakeThisOut@deepsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6L2dnaHX0ueKU23XnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@posted.localnet...
>
> 8>
>
>> Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs. Somebody
>> is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...
>
> Of course there is another explanation..
> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

I'm surprised to know this, because I have observed that the developers
of this operating do know and, or care about even where to store
temporary and, or log files. Moreover, there are no such things as
File-system Standards Base and, or a POSIX complaint like pre-requisite.
That world still lacks a good native shell, you can't format and, or
defrag more than one disk at time on such a multi-tasking operating
system which still is a single use sign on only; or is not a full
mutli-user, multi-tasking and preemptive as yet. IMHO, windows is too
immature compared with Unix, Linux and, or FreeBSD.

I wonder, why the hell Unix, Linux and, or FreeBSD want to make and, or
behave these like windows; even a seasoned Unix, Linux and, or FreeBSD
user would find
http://werc.homelinux.net/links/reference/unix_prog_design.pdf a useful
and interesting paper.

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Mr. Majestic · External Since: Nov 04, 2009 Posts: 5

chrisv wrote:
> Mr. Majestic wrote:
>
>> You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux
>> initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the
>> budget.
>>
>> You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to
>> another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped
>> in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there
>> are other stake holders involved.
>
> Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You
> like building straw men that you can knock down?
>

Yeah, with you being one of those straw men that gets knocked down with
you doing the plonk-and-run two step.

dennis · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 7

"Aragorn" <aragorn DeleteThis @chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcrvkj$h1c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>
>> Of course there is another explanation..
>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

>
> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
> other Windows PC these days. <grin>

Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..
they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load AV
software or just turn them off.

The Natural Philosopher · External Since: Jul 06, 2009 Posts: 10

Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
> like a rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux
^^^^^

Is that what you call a Red Hat afficionado?..

Aragorn · External Since: Feb 22, 2009 Posts: 13

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis@home wrote...

>
>
> "Aragorn" <aragorn.DeleteThis@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hcrvkj$h1c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
>> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>>
>>> Of course there is another explanation..
>>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin
>>> staff.
>>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

>>
>> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
>> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
>> other Windows PC these days. <grin>
>
> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..

Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a
botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server -
i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can
communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been
running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for
technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online
and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird
messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the
simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it
easier for a controller to index them.

The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and
freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt
k1ddi3s get to play with it as well.

> they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load
> AV software or just turn them off.

The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may
inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked
home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer -
generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of
unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain
untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed
there and what not.

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Köhlmann is aka 'Petey To · External Since: Oct 06, 2009 Posts: 6

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote:
>> like a rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using
>> Linux
> ^^^^^
>
> Is that what you call a Red Hat afficionado?..

No, that would be some clown out of control right out of Taco Bell.

William Poaster · External Since: Oct 30, 2009 Posts: 20

Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Aragorn was heard to say:

> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>
>>
>>
>> "Aragorn" <aragorn.DeleteThis@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hcrvkj$h1c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
>>> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>>>
>>>> Of course there is another explanation..
>>>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin
>>>> staff.
>>>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

>>>
>>> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
>>> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
>>> other Windows PC these days. <grin>
>>
>> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..
>
> Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a
> botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server -
> i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can
> communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been
> running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for
> technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online
> and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird
> messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the
> simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it
> easier for a controller to index them.
>
> The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and
> freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt
> k1ddi3s get to play with it as well.
>
>> they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load
>> AV software or just turn them off.
>
> The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may
> inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked
> home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer -
> generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of
> unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain
> untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed
> there and what not.

So dennis@home showing that is something else he knows nothing about,
botnets. What a surprise.

--
Linux. The Malicious Software Removal
tool which wipes Windows from your PC in
seconds!

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Mar 11, 2009 Posts: 60

William Poaster wrote:

> Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Aragorn was heard to say:
>
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
>> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Aragorn" <aragorn.TakeThisOut@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hcrvkj$h1c$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
>>>> identifying as dennis@home wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> Of course there is another explanation..
>>>>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin
>>>>> staff.
>>>>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. Wink

>>>>
>>>> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
>>>> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
>>>> other Windows PC these days. <grin>
>>>
>>> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems..
>>
>> Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a
>> botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server -
>> i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can
>> communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been
>> running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for
>> technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online
>> and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird
>> messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the
>> simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it
>> easier for a controller to index them.
>>
>> The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and
>> freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt
>> k1ddi3s get to play with it as well.
>>
>>> they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load
>>> AV software or just turn them off.
>>
>> The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may
>> inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked
>> home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer -
>> generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of
>> unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain
>> untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed
>> there and what not.
>
> So dennis@home showing that is something else he knows nothing about,
> botnets. What a surprise.
>

Well, knowing absolutely nothing about MD5 isn't his only goal, it seems.
Although in that case he has succeeded just fine. He truly knows *nothing*
about MD5
It seems he is now on to new frontiers. Why not botnets? It seems a worthy
cause for MD5-dennis to know absolutely nothing about those, too
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 1070

On 2009-11-04, chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Mr. Majestic wrote:
>
>> You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux
>> initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the
>> budget.
>>
>> You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to
>> another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped
>> in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there
>> are other stake holders involved.
>
> Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You
> like building straw men that you can knock down?

He makes it sounds like IT systems are bought and then used as if they
were set in stone for 30 years. While there are some systems out there like
that, they certainly aren't WinDOS based. So you are going to have to deal
with "conversion" costs either way. There will be mandatory upgrades required
to keep the product supported. There may need to be code changes to support
newer versions of the system. There will be training costs necessary to deal
with changes that inevitably come with new versions of monopolyware.

An application may reach a tipping point where Windows doesn't scale
anymore. Or an application may not scale using Windows at all to begin with.

TCO might make a "conversion" seem warranted.

--
In a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only |||
has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a / | \
new version of the relevant shovelware is released.