Would Ubuntu LTS or RHEL be better for an enterprise environment?
Linux - EnterpriseThis forum is for all items relating to using Linux in the Enterprise.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Which would you rather use in enterprise of the two distros referred to?
@TobiSGD: the documentation is available to the public on the documentation section of the redhat site, so anyone can read them.
But even though in the case the op presented, i choose rhel, we have to admit that ubuntu has done a few interesting things and they have done very well to create a fan base, so they are not to be discarded completely. Many hosting providers do actually provide services very successfully using ubuntu based servers, however, i believe that many of us here feel that ubuntu is still a bit of a new comer. I personally do not use ubuntu, i just don't like the way things work, but rhel7 will pack a lot of change as well. However in the case of rhel, one can prety much rely on their documentation to get one through the process.
Think of how your clients would view your performace in the workplace.
If your running a workplace and your OS isn't stable that could show a discrepancy or flaw in the enterprises competency. That could wreck it for the IT gentelmen:-
IMO the Red Hat documentation is complete and authoritatively clear-
If I were to start a enterprise envirnment tomorrow it most certainly would not be Ubuntu.
I'm running Ubuntu and it's always something with that distro that I have to fix or tweak.
With my Fedora, I have never had any problems in 2 years-
I like a lot of software and both have there problems on that (one a little more,) never had a Fedora (have not used in two years) last long with updates and such so for me best I use Debian and cut out the middle *ware. Have had Debian run seemingly for ever some upgrades can still brake things but easier on the tweaking in my view.
Last edited by jamison20000e; 12-30-2013 at 08:10 AM.
I like a lot of software and both have there problems on that (one a little more,) never had a Fedora (have not used in two years) last long with updates and such so for me best I use Debian and cut out the middle *ware. Have had Debian run seemingly for ever some upgrades can still brake things but easier on the tweaking in my view.
Absolutely agree with this! I go to centos first then if i cannot get what i want debian. But debian is really solid. I also have not had much luck with fedora.
Fedora\RH has always seemed set for a hand full of things i.e: school and work for that maybe the OP is right to consider it but my vote is in on the more Debian way, just glad I don't have to pay for it looks expensive.
Installed it brand new. After putting the door back onto the side of the tower and started up the desktop Debian just would not go online at all-
Still don't know why the internet connection failed- Even installed wireless-tools:-
Installed it brand new. After putting the door back onto the side of the tower and started up the desktop Debian just would not go online at all-
Still don't know why the internet connection failed- Even installed wireless-tools:-
Certificates- there used to be an Ubuntu cert that one would be eligible to be examined on only after getting LPIC-1. But that cert is gone now, assuming because of very weak interest. But seriously, do you think enterprise relies on certs when choosing OS for their big iron?!
Cannonical has much better documentation, superior to one Red Hat offers. Though development cycle is short, changes introduced are much more predictable than one RH does with its iterations. And as for using end- users as beta testers, Red Hat isn't much better in that retrospect- Fedora anybody?
If I was the enterprise and had to choose between these two, I'd choose Ubuntu with tech support from Canonical. If I was to choose from a wider range, I'd grab Solaris. Superior to any Linux.
I'll agree on the certifacations. They're not really all that relevant. RedHat has some pretty good documentation, you just have to pay to get access to it but I'll agree that Ubuntu has an advantage in this area along with the community forums. While Fedora is used for testing, it's a completely different distro set apart from RedHat so that you know it's not for enterprise use. RedHat itself is pretty stable. Ubuntu LTS is supposed to be the stable release but I've known it to be very buggy when dealing with it. Aside from unity and issues with the desktop version, I support dedicated servers at work and I don't manage every aspect of our customers' systems but whenever a plesk upgrade needs to be done it's always ubuntu that's breaking. The reason it breaks is because of some broken package or dependency when updating all of the packages in the system. Not a distro upgrade either, meaning you couldn't update all of the packages on the system because something was unexplainably broken. You could blame it on the customer but CentOS and RHEL seem to update without any issues. Now that being said, we are using Ubuntu for a lot of our internal servers including our backup servers and they hold up pretty well. Ubuntu does have more modern software than RedHat but I personally don't think it's as stable.
You guys do know that RedHat offers paid support too right? I imagine they were doing that well before Ubuntu. Also a lot of the documentation is free but a lot of articles such as workarounds to common problems require you to log into your RedHat account.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.