[ale] Georgia Computing Standards Explicitly Disallow Linux

[Charles Shapiro]

Hmm. "Linux OS is not an approved OS for the desktop and laptop computer
categories." seems pretty clear to me. If I was a State employee, I'd be
trying to smuggle OS X into the office. After all, that one's not
explicitly disapproved.

I can't really fault 'em for this. If all their training and
understanding is Microsoft, then asking 'em to support something new is
a Big Step. Of course, I'd favor the Pol Pot method of system
administration if I was in IS, but fortunately for the suits I just
write code for a living.

This does make me glad I don't work for the state. One of the ways they
lured me to my current job was the promise "Oh sure, you can run Linux
on your desktop ... if you're  MAN enough."  Works for Me.

-- CHS


On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 07:41, Geoffrey wrote:
> Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> > Actually, there's nothing here that specifically disallows Linux; is
> > just say that it isn't approved.  Where does it say that they have to
> > approve every thing I do if I'm a state employee.
> 
> I would be willing to bet there is such a statement.  Large corporations 
> are much the same way.  AT&T was pretty particular about what software 
> was loaded on their computers.
> 
> Besides, you can
> > always just run one of the BSDs and sidestep the semantic distinction
> > entirely.
> 
> It does appear that any deviation from the standard would require 
> explicit exception request.