4 ms·

Wrong. Two reasons actually: 1. RHEL was the first distro directed at enterprise deployment (meaning, strong preference of rock solid stability and predictabil

Wrong. Two reasons actually: 1. RHEL was the first distro directed at enterprise deployment (meaning, strong preference of rock solid stability and predictability over constant churn). Which made it the only distro Dells and HPs of the world recognized and agreed to support. 2. RHEL was created on legacy of RedHat Linux, which was the best distro for non-hobbyist environments (from reproducible deployments to the breadth of packages available) - since 3.0.3 onwards. RedHat JUST. WORKED.

hackmiester 4y ago
I don't think "Wrong" is a very interesting, helpful, or productive response to someone's lived experience.
- mmcgaha 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - flextheruler 4y ago
    Are you stating that someone’s identity is an excuse for them being disagreeable
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Isn't that the current definition of neuro-divergent tolerance?
  - nimih 4y ago
    Wrong. Two reasons, actually: 1. Culture is a dynamic and malleable thing, and through thoughtful criticism, it's possible to help people not be pedantic assholes on internet message boards. 2. If a post is both unnecessarily abrasive, and doesn't meaningfully engage with the post it's responding to, it adds no value to the conversation, and thus is not worth defending.
btilly 4y ago
My experience disagrees strongly. 1. Debian always had more stability and predictability than Red Hat in practice. Too much so. The Dells and HPs of the world didn't recognize it because it was not a company. 2. My impression was again that Debian was technically better than RedHat in every way I might care about. We happily installed it at $work, and the experienced Unix sysadmins I knew could use RedHat but didn't like it so much.
- worik 4y ago
  > Dells and HPs of the world didn't recognize it [Debian] because it was not a company. IIRC Debian maintainers formed companies for that reason. I was a Debian user because it suited me. It was obvious (to me at the time) that suits were going to choose RedHat, and we ran it a bit to have experience. How wrong I was. Ubuntu made Debian every bit as much as a "choice of the suits" as Redhat.

hackmiester 4y ago

I don't think "Wrong" is a very interesting, helpful, or productive response to someone's lived experience.

mmcgaha 4y ago
[flagged]
- flextheruler 4y ago
  Are you stating that someone’s identity is an excuse for them being disagreeable
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Isn't that the current definition of neuro-divergent tolerance?
- nimih 4y ago
  Wrong. Two reasons, actually: 1. Culture is a dynamic and malleable thing, and through thoughtful criticism, it's possible to help people not be pedantic assholes on internet message boards. 2. If a post is both unnecessarily abrasive, and doesn't meaningfully engage with the post it's responding to, it adds no value to the conversation, and thus is not worth defending.

btilly 4y ago

My experience disagrees strongly. 1. Debian always had more stability and predictability than Red Hat in practice. Too much so. The Dells and HPs of the world didn't recognize it because it was not a company. 2. My impression was again that Debian was technically better than RedHat in every way I might care about. We happily installed it at $work, and the experienced Unix sysadmins I knew could use RedHat but didn't like it so much.

worik 4y ago
> Dells and HPs of the world didn't recognize it [Debian] because it was not a company. IIRC Debian maintainers formed companies for that reason. I was a Debian user because it suited me. It was obvious (to me at the time) that suits were going to choose RedHat, and we ran it a bit to have experience. How wrong I was. Ubuntu made Debian every bit as much as a "choice of the suits" as Redhat.