If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or RHEL?
I've been putting some serious thought into this since last night, but although RHEL is the de-facto enterprise distro for its 10 year support subscription, Ubuntu LTS with paid support from Canonical does seem like a pretty good deal if you were an office migrating from XP and saw switching to Linux as a better option than upgrading to Win8.1.
I mean it would be easier to set up and manage than RHEL because of using APT, which is easier to manage than YUM. Also, it uses newer software than RHEL and doesn't go stale as quick due to upgrading every five years instead of every ten years.
As for support window, Ubuntu LTS' support window isn't as long as RHEL's, but five years is still a pretty good support window.
Yet on RHEL's side, Redhat has had more time in the field than Canonical, and has a longer support window, but it goes stale quicker than Ubuntu LTS, has older software, and is harder to manage.
Also, I see RHEL as more of a server distro, while Ubuntu LTS is great for both the server and the desktop, so you'd be more able to use one distro both clientside and serverside with LTS than you would with RHEL.
Just my $0.02 on the Ubuntu LTS vs. RHEL debate, but I'd like to here you guys' input on this debate.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
Depends on what your IT team has more experience with.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
In the real world, cost would be the primary factor, assuming the needed applications can run on either OS. Comparisons of types of service, support levels, response time, etc., are also critical.
Given virtualization, the current age of RHEL is much less of an issue. And, most businesses run custom software anyway. If a business never needs to run anything but Office and other Windows apps, though, it should just move to Win7.
Issues such as Apt vs Yum are not at all important. They're just tools that do the same thing. The admin(s) you'd hire would be expected to handle software management using whatever tool they preferred.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
With respect to learning curves when migrating from one OS to another OS (compared to RHEL), in my opinion I would have to suggst Ubuntu.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
HI,
It depends the needs, but, I prefer Ubuntu over Fedora/RHEL. The main problem that the business faces is the specific software, like:
- ERPs
- Autocad
- Other specific programs.
For my company the main problem was the ERP. We save a lot of money, in IT costs, but some of our programs need the "windows" so we make VMS of the windows and use only for that part.
About the payed support from Canonical, in my humble opinion is to expensive for little business. +1.000€ for one year! I think if they low the price or make the price intill the end off life of the product is more apellative for small business (+- the costs of a Windows licence but with support!!!! better sallyings I think)
Only my 2 cents.
Regards
Miguel
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
In a large organization, employee retraining costs (including downtime) and potential morale problems (people often see software changes as being forced on them for arbitrary reasons) need to be considered. Retaining as much existing software as possible limits problems and expenses. For many, that would argue for moving from XP to Win7, where existing XP apps would likely run well, greatly reducing training and other costs.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
If I'm a company wanting to deploy a Linux distro in my shop, I'm looking for a vendor that clearly wants to support this. RH is clearly in business to support businesses that use RHEL.
I don't get this vibe from Canonical. From what I can see Canonical is interested in getting OEM deals for mobile, or getting my cloud business, or getting some Amazon affiliate money from Joe user. Even taking LTS into account, their technology stack is changing at breakneck pace. If my goal is to deploy a stable, long-term OS solution for my company's desktops, I get no impression that Canonical is interested in meeting my needs.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
I would install Windows 8 on everything and then go work for a competitor.
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tgalati4
I would install Windows 8 on everything and then go work for a competitor.
Sabotage?:lolflag:
Re: If you were an office migrating from XP, would you rather deploy Ubuntu LTS or R
Okay, I know squat about these issues but...
I wonder if the DE doesn't come into play? Does it matter that RHEL is still using Gnome 2? Aren't the odds fairly strong that RHEL will, at some point, switch to Gnome Shell? Seems to me, given Gnome Shell's overwhelmingly negative reception (I think the linked article is still relevant?) that Unity would be a more stable and stronger choice (if the DE matters at all). Feel free to shoot me down. :popcorn:
