Wow. Welcome back for me. :)

[seth vidal]

> The (enterprise, gov't) adoption decision-makers -- who take a more
> superficial view -- make a bigger distinction than you or I.

There are no enterprise 'labeled' deb-based distributions that I have
ever heard of.



> There is a larger appearance of difference in the way these systems are
> supported...in the way an organization would look at the challenge of
> configuring and updating a large number of systems...in the way the
> distro vendors package these services.  (Ubuntu's enterprise offering is
> vapor yet, but...)

What difference? Red Hat-based distributions use kickstart for mass
deployment and can use yum or up2date for updates.



> It is a nominal thing, but the distinction is being made.  It may not be
> necessary but it exists.  That's my thinking behind.  It comes into the
> conversation when organizations are defining their requirements and
> making the Linux adoption decision.  I don't actually say it doesnt
> matter, because they are thinking about their resources.  There's a
> difference in the way I support Red Hat or Fedora or Ubuntu or JDS and
> planning and money are naturally involved.

What difference? The only thing I can think of is that ubuntu is the
only deb-based distro with an automated installer.

-sv