Conversion to Linux

[Sean Crago]

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Sean Crago <cragos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> businesses.  Businesses care more about those things
>>> than they do about the
>>> minor differences between distributions.
>>>>And companies like to have a good company to support
>>>>the OS which gives them someone to sue if things go
>>>>bad.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I haven't heard any good or bad about them in the server arena.
> Personally I think they should have went with a commercial desktop
> instead of trying to get a piece of the server pie.
>
> --
> Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
> ( www.pembo13.com )
>

I've used them on a number of projects, including my current personal
server, and I've been quite happy. It's like Debian, but with an
active community around it and the option of commercial support.
Debian always had a strong reputation as a server & developer OS.
Throwing on a fancier installation routine and polishing up the
desktop doesn't change that much, and that's basically all that Ubuntu
did. Can't find many meaningful deviations in packages other than the
kernel and the GUI stuff.