Do You Get a UNIX Workstation at Work?

Fished asks: "This may be a selfish question, but so far as I can tell it hasn't been asked before. I'm currently a Solaris System Engineer in a Very Large Company. This Very Large Company has predictably standardized on Windows as their corporate desktop. However, they are also of the opinion that nobody needs anything -but- Windows on their desktop. If you're a UNIX/Linux systems engineer/administrator in a large company, do they give you a desktop for the platform you manage? Do you have any tips on justifying your need for a second, UNIX-based desktop to the powers that be?"

"While Windows may be a truth for most employees, as a System Engineer I find that my productivity is much lower when I am forced to use Windows on my desktop. I spend way too much time overcoming the ways in which Windows is just different from UNIX, and not enough time getting my job done. Loading Solaris X86 is not an option, since we are required to use a bunch of software that is Windows only (much of it sloppily written, IE only internal websites, with fun things like ActiveX controls.) VmWare works, but is certainly less than ideal."

Administer yourself a new workstation

[Anonymous Coward]

You're in charge of them, make it happen and stop being a little girl about it.

Test Box

[Chris Snook]

You don't need a "Workstation", you need a "Test Box". A workstation is an overpriced desktop used to make trouble. A test box is an inexpensive server used to prevent trouble. Aside from the label, they are identical, but it makes all the difference to the bureaucrats.

Dream on, slashdot

[amyhughes]

Perhaps it's the same Very Large Company that I recently left. The engineers currently have both a Windows PC for office apps and email and a Unix workstation (Sun or HP) for actual work, but the current mandate is that all engineering apps are to be ported. This year. Most legacy X apps will be done using that Hummingbird thingy.

What slashdotters don't seem to realize is you can't "just install such-n-such" or "ssh into such-n-such" or "boot from such-n-such" in a controlled corporate environment. If they say Windows, then it's Windows, and don't even think about installing something not in the standard load.

Say hello to Clippy.

Time for a server upgrade

[slarrg]

Just upgrade the smallest Solaris machine. It's almost guaranteed that you can identify some box and reason to upgrade. Afterwards, move the old machine to your desk along with your Windows machine (for the Windows only needs) and use it. If you're lucky, there may already be an old Sun machine lying around that you can just take. In any case, asking for permission will only keep you running around in bureaucracy and it'll never happen but once a machine is on your desk and you're using it everyone will pretty much leave it alone if you just STFU about it.

Re:I guess I have to ask

[paeanblack]

So you need to first come up with a good reason or reasons as to why a Windows desktop doesn't work for you.

That's a very backwards approach to getting work done.

Let your users list the tools with which they work most effectively. Then you cross tools off the list if and only if you have a very good reason or reasons to not provide those tools.

"We provide Windows because we are a Windows shop" really is the tail wagging the dog.

Hard to Believe

[ReidMaynard]

I too am a mild mannered *NIX Engineer at a huge multinational. It's easy to baffle IT into coughing up a spare PC, then throw linux on it. Now I have a Corporate approved XP PC, and my Linux box. I can't remember a single shop where something like this hasn't worked work.

UNIX desktops

[Simon Garlick]

All the alpha geeks at my workplace run UNIX workstations.

We all have Macs.

Re:Administer yourself a new workstation

[QuantumG]

Werd. Too many people in this world ask, nah beg, for permission to do things where if they were to just do it, no-one would care.

Re:I guess I have to ask

[GreggBz]

Not liking it isn't a good reason, there's plenty about work I don't like,

I don't like it because it makes me less productive and I feel crippled when there is a fire to put out.

Don't take my awk and perl and even gedit and vi. I work as a Unix admin for a small ISP and the Linux on the desktop is invaluable.
For auditing e-mail directories, writing scripts to parse the output of a mysql script, using scp to bounce files all over the place, working with tarballs, wget to see what
a web page is really made of in an instant... making expect scripts for the few ancient internal Cisco things, snmptools to fetch all kinds of things
and use them in scripts. I could go on and on.. Ohh... and I use dig and whois all the time!

All in all, I am much more productive when I can do all these things quickly on the command line in 6 terminals at once rather then use Putty, WinSCP, Teraterm even Cygwin. I've tried this and I like Windows right. Just not for being a sysadmin.

but then they are paying me so I'll do what I'm told.

Well, it's funny, the corporation prohibits you from installing and using FREE software in an area where you really won't be affecting any one else.
It's not like they have to support it. I guess that would irk me. But still, you do have a point, you do what you are told and roll with the changes. I guess I'm just lucky.

Re:Does Linux Count?

[azrider]

(so you have to trust the Unix admin to take care of things)

WTF?????

If you can not trust the Unix admin to properly admin a Unix box on your production network, how can you trust anybody else?

Give admins test/staging systems on a cordoned-off network.

Don't you do this anyway, regardless of the platform? If not, there are more problems than trust involved (IMHO).

Re:Do you need a Unix machine?

[dhasenan]

He's a Solaris developer. The software he wants is Solaris, as closely configured to his servers as possible. The servers are 64-bit SPARC machines? He needs to develop on a 64-bit SPARC machine. They're using Solaris 9.2? He wants Solaris 9.2.

Yes, he could use ssh for all that, but in most cases, it is much more convenient to work locally than remotely.

At my job, I do C# development. I could use Mono on Linux for that, and I would prefer to have a solid OS like Linux, but it's being deployed on Windows. Therefore I use Windows to develop it. It's a matter of using the appropriate tools for the task at hand.

Re:I guess I have to ask

[RevDobbs]

"We provide Windows because we are a Windows shop" really is the tail wagging the dog.

Phrased that way yes, to does seem like circular logic. But try asking why the are a windows shop... the phrase ends up looking more like "We provide one operating system because it allows us to standarize our support costs, personnel training, security procedures, and software licences".

Re:I guess I have to ask

[sarathmenon]

I am a linux/unix admin at work, and have a linux system, which I _will_ not trade for a windows system. The IT policy in our place is simple - support will be available if you load windows. If you are on *nix, and have a problem, then STFU. It works fine because as a linux power user, I certainly can manage my system.

And yes, having windows on the desktop != having a unix. You can't manage ssh keys and custom ssh configs as easily with ssh.com and securecrt as with openssh. There is nothing like bash or perl that ships standard with windows. Ever tried setting up X forwarding on windows for that occasional unix gui application? Ever had to keep custom scripts that login to various servers for routine tasks? Ever had to script an ssh authentication script that logs into the new server just setup and copies over your ssh keys, vimrc, bashrc etc? Ever had to deal with antivirus hogging your CPU and memory? The list can be endless, but it definitely helps as an admin to have the OS of your choice.