In terms of support staff, vendor partnerships, professional services, training, licensed support providers, etc it's like comparing the New York Yankees to the Kansas City T-bones. It's not about who you can call on the phone - it's about everything else.<br>
<br>They're nice, they can help out companies and can provide some good support, but for large businesses they're simply not on the same planet - not yet.<br><br>Ubuntu was designed to be a desktop OS. RHEL is an enterprise OS. Red Hat has built a pretty impressive support organization around it. Canonical is probably still 5-10 years away from being there, assuming they get traction in the business world.<br>
<br>Yes, RHEL licenses and so forth will cost them more than probably Canonical will, but then again if they have a network layout as he described, then Red Hat's fees won't faze them at all. What they'll probably want is assurance and capability.<br>
<br>Jeffrey.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Sean Crago <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cragos@gmail.com">cragos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>Just out of curiosity, have you tried Canonical's support? I'll not<br>
argue about the certifications (personally, I rather loathe the<br>
concept, but I'll grant that Canonical's can't be as widespread or<br>
mature), but I haven't seen enough either way to say that Canonical's<br>
paid support is any better or worse than Red Hat's. Have you?<br>
<br>
Not an attack/really asking - It'd be good to hear what people have to<br>
say about them.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine<br>