Hot take: your desire to run your choice of OS on your work laptop does not trump my desire to ensure the safety of data belonging to our users
@mjg59 what if my efficiency diminishes a lot with any OS choice given by the company (or you in this case)?
Should this at least be a reason for you to make it work reasonably safe but not just "take this OS and none other"?
@littlefox if your employer can't support an OS that allows you to work effectively then it's time to find another employer, just as in any other case where employer policies interfere with your ability to do work
@littlefox if the default is just to allow anything then you end up with someone insisting on Windows XP and then their prod creds getting stolen and now you're going to have a bad day
@littlefox And if instead you want IT to support managing an additional range of special-cased OSes then you may improve some developer efficiency but at a significant cost to IT and security efficiency
@mjg59 @littlefox I know you're referring to software development settings. Other workplaces present different challenges. For me (working in healthcare and primary education settings, with a distant background in corporate infosec), it's common to feel that I'm better able to protect sensitive data than my employer, whose IT systems are often overseen by an overworked operations manager who's struggling to keep the lights and HVAC running, as well as manage a coterie of aging servers and desktops. But except when invited, I rarely deviate from the work systems I'm given, since I don't want the liability I'd assume in going my own way, even if I'd be more efficient (and even if my employer wouldn't care). The employer "owns" their policies and their consequences.