Trainguyrom

I've been using Edge at work. I literally made the decision as "this is a Microsoft heavy shop, Microsoft is pushing Edge hard, and Bing is kinda good now, so let's see how this goes" and I haven't had a need to switch back.

I use Edge's different profiles for testing, work stuff and personal stuff to keep them nicely separated and prevent any from bleeding too hard into eachother

Have you tried open street map? The geography nerds building that have a surprisingly up to date and high quality map of the rural midwestern region I live in so you might be pleasantly surprised

Bing has gotten surprisingly good recently though?

Firefox uses its own internal cert database which could create a similar effect.

Firefox supports DNS over HTTPs or a similar protocol that escapes my memory at the moment which could very well mess with its ability to handle DNS

The big problem with Privacy Sandbox is who is implementing it. I was on the fence about it for similar reasons until I saw who came out against it. Mozilla, the EFF, etc. all heavily condemned it, so I knew it was safe to say its bad (limited time, unlimited desire for knowledge and all I did not have the time to do a deep dive on Google's newest way to get people okay with invasive tracking)

Wake me up when September ends?

That was literally how Apple became as big as it is. They created an ecosystem that encourages evangelism and outs people's personal choices (green bubble vs blue bubble for example) while also making it intentionally difficult to mix and match outside of the ecosystem. Obviously it's not a 1:1 comparison but it's an example of a successful competitor to the market leader and how it keeps itself relevant.

IT guy here, the choice of what to ship on the corporate desktops/laptops is a lot more naunced than that.

Are there users in the organization that use Excel heavily? Other windows-only software heavily? If the answer is yes then you're looking at complicating support instantly because now you have 2 separate fleets of workstations that each require different tooling to manage and you either have to have a helpdesk that can be trained to handle questions for both or have different teams to handle each which is more opportunities for helpdesk requests to be miscommunicated, lost, etc. and adds some time to the ticking process. You also have to decide how users are selected for which they get. If you leave it up to the users they'll all choose what they're used to and you'll just get a handful of weirdos which make the cost of allowing it likely higher than it's worth. But if you force it on people by team you run the risk of someone having dual roles or covering duties and being largely hamstrung when they can't use the windows software needed for the other role. Does this create a 2 tier system where users given the Linux workstations have less upward mobility? Or are you potentially creating future hassle where your Linux users will randomly have to come to IT to have their computer switched because they gained a duty that requires Windows software (which is a ton of lost productivity while they get things set how they like)

You also have to now maintain 2 sets of management tooling since generally Active Directory and Linux tend to be a pain to mix. This also means 2 different streams of vulnerability tracking and patch tracking, and 2 different streams of testing if you hold back updates for testing before deployment. And 2 different attack surfaces to keep secure for audits and red teams.

But let's suppose you find that absolutely everybody in your organization can be moved to Linux as nobody uses software that won't work on Linux natively. Awesome this is the best case scenario for Linux workstations in the office. What are the long term ramifications? Are you potentially limiting your options for vendors or contracts your organization can take on? Are some of your employees working at reduced productivity potential because they aren't using the best tool for the job?

These are the considerations that have to be made, and argued politically for Linux to be deployed to user workstations in the office. Extremely similar conversations have historically had to happen (and continue to have to happen!) within IT departments to move things away from Windows Server. A bank I worked at just a year ago was so heavily invested in the Windows server ecosystem that they had Windows server in places it really shouldn't have been and the choice to use Windows Server actually was a hindrance.

I think in the long run it has a chance. Linux has gotten so much better on the desktop in just the last 5 years, plus with the move to webapps across the board (not to mention kids in school right now learning on ipads and Chromebooks and never touching a Windows machine) I'm sure the decision will slowly get easier and easier, but right now, there's very limited opportunities to make Linux workstations happen in a big way in the corporate world, and I don't forsee that changing in the next 5 years

More like:

“Hey I have a problem with my Samsung”

"Here's a custom ROM you can install instead" (but also glosses over a lot of the finer decisions that go into whether or not to choose to run a custom ROM)

With your /32 assignments you basically told your system, it has no network to talk to

More accurately you've told the device that it is the only device on its network. It's a network of 1 IP with no broadcast nor network ID. This is very common with public IPs where you get a singular IP.

You don't by chance have a formerly-mellonox card as your network card, do you? I wonder if something is checking for the Nvidia vendor string to only start one GPU and the devs forgot that Nvidia doesn't only make GPUs

In the same way that we sometimes put delays into live events to allow the subtitling systems breathing room.

I've always heard this was because of the infamous Superbowl Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction (where the malfunction was that only one nip was slipped and not both as was clearly intended)