Basically title. Do you know of any companies that use desktop Linux?
I can think of two in my area in Brisbane - Adfinis and Red Hat. Both have a pretty small presence here from what I last heard (several employees each).
My employer allows the Linux team to use Linux but it’s discouraged and our lives are made somewhat difficult.
Is there a law that prevents employers from docking someone’s salary by the expensive proprietary software you opt-in for, instead of using a free option?
What an awful take. “Free as in freedom” includes not being docked pay for your software choices.
Right, well, free means free. Free software users wouldn’t get docked. Non-free software users would.
I said free as in freedom, not free as in gratis.
But since you want to double down on this bad idea, let me explain why it’s shit:
If your employer expects you to use tools to do your job, they should pay for those tools if they cost something. Passing off operational expenses to the employees that use more expensive tools is hideously anti-worker, and it’s not even funny as a joke.
Employers should pay for the tools used to run their businesses, and you should learn what the “free” in “free open source software” means, because it’s not about money.
There are no tools that you need to pay for that are not free as gratis or libre.
But I would be OK with only charging for software that’s not libre. So software thats gratis but not libre doesn’t dock you, since you’re contributing to something good that helps the world
You have never had a job before, huh?
Lol I’m in my 30s and hold a senior position. I’ve had a lot of jobs…
Oh, you failed up. Checks out.
Yes, the word free in English both means free as in gratis, without cost, as well as free as in freedom.
What? No genuinely which company is docking employees for using unfree software. If anything it’s the opposite.
I don’t know of any, but I’d like to see it.
“Want to use Windows and Office? Here’s the bill.”
That would genuinely make sense though, proprietary software (especially paid proprietary software) costs more money for any company then open source software. Windows needs more maintenance then an ultra stable Linux distro like Debian or even an LTS release of Ubuntu or Fedora. Meanwhile Microshaft ensures that any document made with office doesn’t look the same unless it’s viewed with office.
No, it doesn’t, because the cost of that software is on the business because it makes them money. This person is literally smoking crack if they think it should ever be on the employee. There is never, ever, ever a situation where an employee paying an employer is a good thing.
Yes, it makes sense. I just wonder if there’s any laws that would prevent employers from doing this.
Why should there be? If someone wants more expensive software then they should pay for it.
I could seeseome countries passing laws to prevent people like graphic artists from being “discriminated against” due to their software needs.
I’m not saying it makes sense, but such laws might exist. And I want to know if they do
Graphic designers makes sense, also a PNG made in a proprietary program can be viewed with any photo viewer. Documents editors are completely different.