We don't hire people in order for them to learn Linux, per se. We hire junior sysadmins who already have at least a home lab level of experience there -- a standard interview request is to describe a disaster that you caused, what went wrong, how you solved it, and what you could have done to prevent it and what you did do differently afterwards.
Can I spend time and effort changing that? Of course. But why fix something that isn't broken?
Am I tying my identify to $OPERATING_SYSTEM? No. It just works for me, so I'm a $OPERATING_SYSTEM user.
Because this can be a form of brokenness. Someone would be hired for their aptitude and probably not because of something they have already repeated over and over (unless we include factory work). The ability to adapt and create (and be creative) is usually not described as such in SWE work, but a lot of the actual work does include that.
That said, if a job has a match based on OS, it would probably just as much be a good thing to explicitly know that you either will be or won't be a good fit based on what you are used to and what you think you can adapt to. Knowing this about a job or a potential hire saves everyone a lot of time.
Says who? I think (as a devil's advocate) it's very useful that people are interchangeable, and that tools are similar enough to allow people to collaborate.
I also think that if (imaginary percentages used) a 10% reduction in productivity because a worker can't use their most bestest tool ever is worth it if it means I can get 40 of those workers for the same price as 10 workers that are proficient in that very special choice of tool. You can pretty much exchange any of those with management overhead or policy requirements (be it by law or otherwise).
> tools are similar enough to allow people to collaborate.
I think this reason in particular isn't all that valuable though; especially not since people tend to customize their setups anyway. I once worked somewhere that mandated software choice (including IDE) for this reason and I never saw any value in it.
I don't love the cost of apps on it, there are some tiny apps that I can't believe how much they want for them, and some bigger apps that are easily $60-200 but I don't need any of those.
Still use windows to game and I think it's still a nice chill OS that just works, for me at least. I didn't enjoy developing on it, though, I broke WSL a bunch of times.
With decent Linux knowledge I think being issued a MBP at my first job out of college was better for my productivity than a windows machine would have been within a week or so, even as a long time Windows user. Windows has generally always had a higher frequency of annoyances.
Everything is in weird places and the OS feels like it’s fighting me at every level.
Unfortunately a lot of workplaces truly enforce Windows use.
I am a little tickled that this is the first time I’ve ever heard of windows being anything other than the default or only choice.
Learning is a part of the on-boarding experience at any new job and technical learning usually pales in comparison to learning about the business domain and company specific practices.