I don’t know if it’s just me that find it highly interesting that they choose to run Windows for these kind of things? Anyone able to elaborate the reasons for this? Surely this just costs them so much extra having to buy licenses for each of these screens…?
Linux isn’t free at the enterprise level. You aren’t just downloading a Linux flavor and slapping it on everything. There’s going to be a support contract to cover if something weird happens an expert is on site to help fix it within 24hrs. There’s going to be guarantees that if software does x it will work even with future os updates. Replacement hardware will be available and compatible as well.
This right here. Many years ago when a foodlion near me rolled out self check outs I happened to discover a way to crash the self check app and access windows running underneath.
The intern who did it didn’t know better and it’s cheaper to spend hundred of thousands on Microsoft rather than project past the next few years since whoever is in charge will be gone by then.
Welcome to the work world, where inefficiency is only problematic when it shows up on an Excel sheet.
If they only have a support team for Windows, then it makes sense to use Windows only for all their devices. If they deploy a different OS, then they need to either hire a new support team, or train the existing team for the new OS. Either way would be more expensive than the licensing fees.
That’s not the case. Usually governments and public organisations go throw a volume licensing agreements that sees them taking more than just windows. It would usually include things like windows, office, a bunch of enterprise applications, as well as support on top of it all.
Microsoft usually relies on those agreements to push software that might not be needed.
Another reason could be the video display management system they used to remotely control these screens. The software might only run on windows.
Add comment