10 ms·
I think it was more that Ubuntu was easier to use on the desktop, so developers would use that locally or in VMs and RedHat/CentOS on the server. But inevitably
by dist-epoch 3y ago
I think it was more that Ubuntu was easier to use on the desktop, so developers would use that locally or in VMs and RedHat/CentOS on the server. But inevitably, they would also then push to deploy on Ubuntu servers to reduce friction. This was true for me, I hated dealing with CentOS because of the minor incompatibilities with Ubuntu, so whenever I had the chance, I pushed/chose Ubuntu on the servers. So little by little, you hook a generation on Ubuntu.
It's a bit like the old Photoshop strategy, you let them pirate the software when young to hook them up, and then they would demand it professionally.
- mekster 3y agoNever seriously used Linux desktop but before several versions of RH, packages were so much older than Ubuntu, it was pretty impractical to use CentOS but people who don't know a thing about servers always chose CentOS because when they Google around, newbie blogs tend to use CentOS for no reason other than RedHat probably was more recognized as a vendor name. Ubuntu was always easier on the server with root user disabled by default and unattended-upgrades did its job without a hassle with newer packages. (It meant quite different if it was PHP 5 or 7.)
- gilcot 3y agoHere, in France, established companies like dealing with big established providers and feel happy with licence contracts. Plus, a version last at least five years. (to compete Ubuntu had to come with four years LTS...) So when they have to use a GNU/Linux distribution, they tend to choose RHEL (Novell could have been a good choice but I don't know why they're not known or not well.) Many countries in Europe and in French speaking Africa countries also love RHEL. Consequence: when you couldn't sign/subscribe for RHEL, you pick CentOS.