Remembering Linux after Years in IT Dealing with Windows 10 & 11

 

Linux Mint - Revisited

After years in IT—generations ago when I was first exploring Ubuntu 10.10 using UNetbootin to create a bootable live disk—life did what it often does and pulled me in a different direction. At the time, I didn’t realize how often I’d encounter systems frozen in place by necessity rather than choice.

The expectation was relentless uptime—often 90 to 100 percent—to keep processing running around the clock. Some of the equipment I encountered was astonishingly old, including machines still running Windows XP. It was surprising to see a modern processing plant relying so heavily on legacy systems, yet over time I began to recognize a familiar pattern.

I’ve since seen the same reality play out in medical and industrial environments alike: software and operating systems frozen in time, not because they were ideal, but because they were critical. When systems are deeply embedded in workflows, updating them becomes risky, expensive, or simply impossible—so they remain, quietly doing their job long after they should have been retired.

This brings me to the main point of this post: when so many critical systems rely on aging software, it makes sense to consider alternatives that are actively maintained rather than frozen in time. Linux is a strong contender for the path forward.

Though there may not be as widespread adoption of the software something that is open source and regularly updated while also compatible with older hardware would be the better option. What this tells me is if the software can run on windows 10 then it can run on Linux and iterations of the same software. Even when compatibility layers such as Wine are required, these applications can often run more securely on Linux than they would on legacy versions of Windows, particularly when the underlying system is still actively maintained and patched.

 This is in part because there is less of an attack vector on Linux as there is on windows. This is partially because most issues that arrive on windows don't have a place to land on linux. Along with the fact that linux by its very nature is less well known as windows. On Windows, legacy software often forces the operating system to age with it. On Linux, the operating system can continue to evolve while the application remains stable.  Linux is not inherently immune to security issues, but its design and update model make it easier to keep systems secure over long periods of time. Windows compatibility often ends when vendor support ends. Linux compatibility often begins where vendor support stops. These statement reference the reality of Linux versus windows. 

What ultimately stands out is that the decision between Linux and Windows in mission-critical environments is often less about technical merit and more about familiarity. Many professionals grow comfortable with a specific platform over years — sometimes decades — and that comfort can turn into resistance when alternatives are introduced. Even when a change could reduce the attack surface or improve long-term stability, it may still be met with hesitation simply because it disrupts what is known and trusted. Ironically, this resistance can leave systems more exposed over time. While the platform remains familiar, the threat landscape continues to evolve, and the cost of staying still quietly increases.

In the end, the choice between Linux and Windows in critical environments is rarely about capability. It is about comfort, habit, and the willingness to reassess long-standing assumptions. As threats continue to evolve, the systems we trust most may deserve a second look — not because they are new, but because they reduce risk in ways we’ve learned to overlook.