> 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 -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
