Debian vs redhat

whats the point of red hat if Debian is a thing + its free as in price

Attached: cf2.png (1920x1080, 488.07K)

First of all that picture looks like total dogshit
RHEL is also free as in price for personal use but businesses pay for it so they can get support. which is why everything red hat makes is designed to not work.

Attached: Vector_wallpaper.png (1080x1403, 475.1K)

>just a little bloat to get the job done
nice

Red Hat sells support, not the distro itself, you can even make a fork without paying anything.

BUILD

>make a shit distro
>shill it to business
>sell """support""""
>????
>PROFIT

There's a ton of businesses that offer support for many distros, Freexian sells Debian support. There's nothing wrong with it. Not everyone can dedicate time into IT.

>Freexian sells Debian support.
ok so why would any business choose red hat instead of debian if they can get support for debian too?

Depends on the client's policies. One of my clients is a bank that require all servers to have Windows Server even though I only run some Python scripts with crontab and ftp commands. So end up installing Ubuntu through WSL and using that instead. I could simply use Debian but I can't. Same with RHEL clients, good thing I can use distrobox in RHEL.
Why would they choose a system over another? Beats me, old experience and corpo deals, corpos usually don't trust stuff without its own marketing. Windows, Ubuntu and RHEL are the most systems I install.
The only valid option I can think of is for remote businesses that can't get IT technicians on site because reasons. I know some corpos contract red hat so in case shot hits the fan they blame them instead.

learned something today thanks for your input

Many governments (especially in the USA) require a written contract of support for every software used.
Some people want the added security of being able to blame RedHat.
RedHat contain some proprietary blobs replacing these with FOSS is how CentOS started.
RedHat often have hardware certified meaning that you take the guesswork out of buying hardware. These certifications are often quite expensoive, other Distros solve it with their own unoficcial hardware recommendations.
RedHat has a massive raster of applications it supports not onluly run but have official technical support for if you run it meaning if you want a complete Linux environment with support from hardware to os and applications RedHat, Oracle Linux and OpenSUSE are the only strong options.

>complete Linux environment with support from hardware to os and applications
isn't that a big overkill to have support for every little thing?

debhat or redian

Depends. For most people yes, that is reflected in RedHats market share.
Some people need it, and as stated earlier some governments demand it. A lot of Linux and FOSS development is funded by these kinds of weird demands

What in the fuck are those proportions?
Disgusting.

Attached: disgusting2.jpg (736x521, 56.78K)

I run Rocky Linux (RHEL fork from the CentOS creator) simply because I want stability and I like dnf more than apt (the command line package manager).

I guess they just kept on making gui package managers and forgot that their CLI is fucking dogshit compared to the alternatives.

what the point of Red hat if Red Hat (Debian) is a thing?

>I know some corpos contract red hat so in case shot hits the fan they blame them instead.
I thought this was pretty much the only reason for support contracts, so that it's someone else's fault if something bad happens.
that and when the auditors come around and want to make sure you're only running "supported" software because that's a compliance requirement you can point to a piece of paper and say "yeah, these guys are supporting it"

>dedicate time into IT.
That's not it, Red Hat fixes kernel bugs for us when we tested k8s on their distro and found a few performance degradation issues. This is not IT.

Red Hat is a base for a good number of appliances because they cooperate with 3rd party vendors, SELinux is also nice.

Check Point for example bases the majority of their products on their Gaia OS which is based on RHEL.
The operating system is heavily stripped down and hardened as it should be; the purpose of the product is to run Firewalls, you'd want to minimise potential for vulnerabilities on the thing you use to protect your perimeter.
The latest Kernel used is 3.10 which would otherwise be long EOL, but Red Hat still offers support.
Extensive modification for every new kernel that gets pushed out (with increasing complexity) would make maintenance a nightmare.

Given that Gaia is 1/3 broken at any point in time, imagine how it'd be if they had to perpetually push to newer kernels.

>try debian stable
>has lots of bugs that dont get fixed

Attached: 1492558924833.jpg (215x250, 4.38K)