On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 13:41 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > Be that as it may, the only reason people consider CentOS an > "Enterprise" Linux is because it's a spin of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. > That's the only reason. Debian is just as "Enterprise" than CentOS, > in my opinion, but it's not considered an "Enterprise" Linux because > it's not a copy of something produced by a commercial venture and > marketed toward the datacenter user. I think when it comes to picking an OS for commercial reasons, what sort of support you can get probably sways more than anything else. Of course, information about what seems reliable is in there as part of the decision making process, as well as if which can do what you need. Red Hat and Debian, for instance, are quite different from each other. Apart from this being a cause for opinions about the two, it'll mean technical familiarity with one doesn't translate directly to the other. If one was going to make a standpoint on how solid an *ix-like OS is, to decide which to get, one would probably go for a BSD. Their reputation outranks Linux, and the strongest one certainly isn't commercial. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
