alt Hacker News> Isn't it about time someone developed one?
Honest question: Why? If you want a Windows-like environment, run Windows.
I get this all the time when people ask about a Linux equivalent for something, and aren't really satistied when it doesn't work or look the same. Linux isn't a clone of Windows. Linux comes from an older heritage, and has a unique culture. You are in for a hard time if you want to use Linux like you would use Windows. That's a suboptimal experience, at best.
That said, of course Linux should be easy to manage. But Windows is from a single corporate entity, of course their management tools will be different. It used to be unix admins that laughed about people using Windows as servers. The culture around Linux is one of scriptabiliy where even the user interface, the basic shell, is one where every command is inherently a script. That's why management on Linux looks like Ansible and OpenSSH, not like Remote Desktop and Group Policies.
You could write something like Group Policies for Linux of course, but it wouldn't be a complete solution so people would just continue using Ansible, OpenSSH, and the respective package managers.
Replies
> Honest question: Why?
Because it works really well for a corporate environment where you require central management for your devices. Yes, the environments of Linux and Windows are different as you said, and unfortunately that means one will generally be better than the other within certain contexts. The corporate workstation use case is a gigantic one that Windows is currently dominating in, and this is terrible for Linux adoption because it means to get a job at a place that uses Windows you are incentivized to use it yourself so you can learn it. It also means that schools (which are often run like businesses internally) are way more likely to use it, so new students that are just learning how to use a computer are coming up on Windows.
Linux is indeed very different from Windows and that's fine, that isn't a problem at all and it has plenty of upsides. What should be clear is that this particular use case is a remarkable downside for Linux, and the mass adoption of Windows in the majority of businesses should make that self evident. Realistically Linux can and absolutely is used in business contexts in the same way as Windows (hence why France is going ahead with it), but it isn't as optimized for it as Windows is, when it totally could be. Macs have had some robust management platforms made for them that I've found pretty similar to AD for example. If someone developed a straight out AD clone for Linux that functioned more or less the same on the front-end it would be huge for Linux adoption in my opinion. Hopefully that answers your question.
What's the Linux version of AD and group policies? (honestly curious; linux sysadmin at scale not my day job)
> If you want a Windows-like environment, run Windows.
One of these questions where we, those doing the discourse, need to pick apart what the word "you" refers to here.
In this context, it is national governments, who have started to fear that there may come a day when they are not allowed to or able to or safe to run Windows. That gives rise to the question, "how can we get a system that minimizes the disruption of migrating away to Windows?"
Ultimately it's not about specifically wanting AD or GP as technologies, either, but the things they enable: seamless single-sign-on across an organization, and management of software security and updates across a fleet of desktops.
(possibly the thing that fills this hole is simply a fleet of consultants which go around explaining things to CIOs!)