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