> Usually the latter comes down to the company having group-policies, or mandatory compliance software managed centrally.
Yup. The company I work for kinda has this. Their security software does support Linux, but usually lags a bit. So to fully use it, you have to not apply the latest kernel updates. Makes total sense for a vendor promising to improve your "security posture".
They're working on improving the situation, from what I understand, but they're still not there yet. The provider is a company you've probably heard of, that doesn't allow you to download the installers if you're not signed in (they're not custom, since they still require you pass in some installation token to tie it to your tenant). Good times.
Fortunately for me, instead of bugging me to switch to Windows, they're bugging the vendor for improved Linux support. The reason being that we intend to run this on Linux servers, too, and don't expect to change those to Windows.
Yup. The company I work for kinda has this. Their security software does support Linux, but usually lags a bit. So to fully use it, you have to not apply the latest kernel updates. Makes total sense for a vendor promising to improve your "security posture".
They're working on improving the situation, from what I understand, but they're still not there yet. The provider is a company you've probably heard of, that doesn't allow you to download the installers if you're not signed in (they're not custom, since they still require you pass in some installation token to tie it to your tenant). Good times.
Fortunately for me, instead of bugging me to switch to Windows, they're bugging the vendor for improved Linux support. The reason being that we intend to run this on Linux servers, too, and don't expect to change those to Windows.