Conversion to Linux

[Jeffrey Watts]

In terms of support staff, vendor partnerships, professional services,
training, licensed support providers, etc it's like comparing the New York
Yankees to the Kansas City T-bones.  It's not about who you can call on the
phone - it's about everything else.

They're nice, they can help out companies and can provide some good support,
but for large businesses they're simply not on the same planet - not yet.

Ubuntu was designed to be a desktop OS.  RHEL is an enterprise OS.  Red Hat
has built a pretty impressive support organization around it.  Canonical is
probably still 5-10 years away from being there, assuming they get traction
in the business world.

Yes, RHEL licenses and so forth will cost them more than probably Canonical
will, but then again if they have a network layout as he described, then Red
Hat's fees won't faze them at all.  What they'll probably want is assurance
and capability.

Jeffrey.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Sean Crago <cragos at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Just out of curiosity, have you tried Canonical's support? I'll not
> argue about the certifications (personally, I rather loathe the
> concept, but I'll grant that Canonical's can't be as widespread or
> mature), but I haven't seen enough either way to say that Canonical's
> paid support is any better or worse than Red Hat's. Have you?
>
> Not an attack/really asking - It'd be good to hear what people have to
> say about them.
>
>

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20081101/fc4e2538/attachment.htm>