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.
Metal: HP dc5750 | OS: Arch Linux 32-bit | Kernel: 3.14.0-1-ARCH | 1.8GHz AMD Sempron 3400+ | 1.5GiB RAM | 80GiB HDD | DM/DE combo: LXDM + MATE.