4 ms·
SuSE would be a better option then, IMO. Not only have they been around much longer (1994 vs 2004), they offer much better support compared to Canonical. And as
by d3Xt3r 11mo ago
SuSE would be a better option then, IMO. Not only have they been around much longer (1994 vs 2004), they offer much better support compared to Canonical. And as a bonus, you don't need to put up with any of the continuous enshittifications Canonical subjects you to (Snaps, increasing poor quality code etc).
- linsomniac 11mo agoThe funny thing about SuSE, and admittedly I haven't touched it for over a decade now: Everyone I knew who used it touted that it had great enterprise support as a reason for using it, but everybody I knew that used SuSE used OpenSuSE. This was over ~20 years of providing Linux support, RHEL-based and Ubuntu were by far the distros we dealt with the most. One issue I had with OpenSuSE was that once a new release drops you have around 6mo to migrate all your machines over to it. Which, for most businesses, is a pretty short timeline, in my experience. I've always preferred authoring RPMs over debs, but Caninical having basically one distro without the forks, I think is a huge benefit for a business using them.