4 ms·
Red Hat offers corporate support contracts, while other distros have community or consultant support at best. This is attractive to executive managers in corpor
by imiric 3y ago
Red Hat offers corporate support contracts, while other distros have community or consultant support at best. This is attractive to executive managers in corporations, as they can be seen as investing into a mature technology, and the systems are contractually guaranteed to keep running by a 3rd party, so shifting blame is easy.
- zvmaz 3y ago> so shifting blame is easy. But are the contracts actually useful? I wager that to have support from Red Hat is really useful beyond what you may view as "corporate politics".
- getoffmyyawn 3y agoYes, very. I previously worked for RH and there really wasn't a top end of support options. I knew of companies with a contract that had RH maintaining custom kernel patched for them. Another paid for a highly skilled SRE to be in their office ready to help anytime. A small number of companies are willing to pay a lot of money for these kinds of options.
- neurostimulant 3y agoMaybe not, but when your certification requires using supported OS and patching know exploits as soon as possible, then you don't have much distro options to choose from if you want easier time to pass an audit.
- kmac_ 3y agoLong-term support is critical. For example, Microsoft excels in that area and has patched its really old products to meet new PCI recommendations such as TLS 1.3, which can actually save a lot of money.
- SSLy 3y agoWe've submitted bugs related to IO, and had them promptly fixed.
- em-bee 3y agoat least SUSE and Canonical offer corporate support contracts too.
- orev 3y agoThis is a common type of reply, and it’s not inaccurate, but it’s also extremely cynical and misses the bigger point. Pay to blame is only a minor benefit, while stability and having a standard snapshot as a target is far more important.