On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Brandon Vincent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production environment? Is
>> it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g., not a
>> consume/enthusiast product such as
>> MS Win or RH Fedora)?
>
> Ubuntu LTS is used in a lot of production environments that tend to
> require newer libraries and packages. Most major distributions are
> reasonably secure out of the box, I'd argue that the primary
> difference is EL tends to have very thoroughly vetted package updates.
> I've seen some LTS packages with bugs and most other distributions
> don't test packages thoroughly enough for production. Debian however
> is very stable for servers (I'd probably use Debian over Ubuntu for
> production).

The idea that RHEL's superior to Debian, SUSE, or Ubuntu as an
enterprise distro is laughable, except perhaps that it's support life
cycle's longer.

And the idea that RHEL supplies bug-free, well-vetted packages is
proven to be wrong by the brain-dead, clearly untested bind-chroot
package that was discussed recently.

Red Hat's huge and has a good PR and marketing department; but that's it.