Wow. Welcome back for me. :)
shiser at cloud9.net
Wed Jun 29 17:56:36 UTC 2005
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 13:57 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > 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.
Respectfully, you don't sit with IT heads and explain all this and then
that it actually only makes a difference in the process. They don't
know and they need to know -- or they ask: "RPM or DEB?" It's a
different perspective. We make Debian (and now Ubuntu) almost
enterprise-class. It's what Red Hat does, and does better than anyone
> Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
> Fedora-marketing-list at redhat.com
More information about the marketing