Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a Linux distribution mainly used in commercial data centers.
N/A
Ubuntu
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Ubuntu Linux is a Linux-based operating system for personal computers, tablets and smartphones. There is also a Server version which is used on physical or virtual servers in the data center.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has wider vendor support for enterprise applications. Also, [ Red Hat Enterprise Linux] (RHEL) provides a better life cycle management than SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and Ubuntu Linux. In addition, by using [ Red Hat Enterprise Linux] (RHEL) we are …
Red Hat Enterprise Linux stands above Windows and Ubuntu, in my opinion, because of streamlined features, excellent support, and plethora of available documentation and user created tools.
The support system of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is better than canonical, at least on the server side. The user side I do prefer Ubuntu as it is where I cut my teeth with linux
So we in our company have used Ubuntu as well. Sometimes we have to use that because a certain application installer requires that we use that operating system, but we really don't prefer it just because it doesn't come with the same Add-on features that make Red Hat Enterprise …
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the goto Linux operating system compared to Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux when you need / want an RPM based operating system, no questions asked. Some applications only support Debian based operating systems which is disappointing, and thus Ubuntu is the …
The biggest thing about RHEL that makes it stand out for enterprise users is the support that we get from the vendor. Whereas with the other ones, you're basically left on your own. There's no official repo, there's no satellite for patching. You're very left on your own with …
RHEL is better for most use cases that I use professionally for sure. It's the best choice for a professional development environment or a professional server environment.
They have their own pluses and minuses, but for what RHEL eight is and for what it does, I would recommend it above anything else for an enterprise. Two, consistency and stability of the environment, making sure the packages that our developers need are available and not being …
We selected RHEL because it is a supported platform from our ISVs, because of the Enterprise-level support, and because of the long history of Open Source involved and community contributions.
Red Hat is much more compatible and guaranteed stable. We selected Red Hat because of this, but mostly because third-party Linux products are just going to work with Red Hat, with no need to spend time trying to make them go. Also, it's management tools are now quite good and …
CENTOS is the unsupported version of RHEL. There is Ubuntu, which in the current years has become very stable, but the thing is it's been funded by tech giants (I am not going to name them here) and that is the reason they tend to collect a lot of information from the linux …
RHEL was licensed product which was denied by lot of our clients as it was increasing the infra cost. With fedora and debian we had lot of issues related to other supporting tools that we were supposed to use for application deployment. Fedora is also consuming lot of memory …
So the main reason behind selecting Ubuntu among others was the easy implementation of services in it. Apart from that, as compared to other Linux its GUI is far more better to use and learn. The support of Debian packages and other software implementations are also great in it.
A viable, free, widely used alternative to any modern operating systems on the market. Ubuntu [Linux] is constantly improved, has an enormous user base, a very good community. It's one of the most advanced Linux distributions of today, and can be highly customized to the point …
We chose Ubuntu largely because of the large user base and because desktop setups can be easy to learn for people used to Windows computers and, of course, other distributions of Linux. Not a single one of the people we work with has had formal education or training with …
We mainly chose Ubuntu Linux for its broad compatibility and package availability. Where we have a choice we prefer to deploy software on a Linux platform rather than Windows. Ubuntu is supported by our backup software and we find that updates typically complete without errors. …
We chose Ubuntu because it has lower licensing fees and better free support. We like Debian-based distributions in general, and Ubuntu in particular. Other Debian-based distros we use include Kali and Mint. We've also done trials on Fedora on the desktop, but found that Ubuntu …
While the major Linux releases are all fairly mature and stable, I find Ubuntu to be the release I turn to the most. It has a consistent look and feel that spans across the various versions of Ubuntu, which I really like. It is easy to install and configure, and updates are easy.
Historically Ubuntu has been one step forward from Red Hat and CentOS distributions about software versions and tools usability. In the last years they've caught up and it's very comparable, but at this point, my decision was already made and I will continue choosing Ubuntu, …
For the size and scale of the applications and integrations being developed, it just didn't make sense to go into our existing Red Hat infrastructure. Functionally, you're not really missing anything aside from an existing support contract (which you can get through Canonical, …
Administrador de Redes e Infraestructura C.A. & Co
Chose Ubuntu
All operating systems are very similar, but for the purposes of web services development, testing environments and facilities for administration within a graphics environment, Ubuntu offers us greater ease to work.
Ubuntu is geared for one real market: Users who are searching for a way to experience Linux, without having to "experience" Linux (i.e. the various package formats, Kernel compiling, etc).
We also have a server than runs RHEL. I do not have a strong preference of one over the other. There is no GUI in our version of RHEL, and sometimes it is nice to look at files and folders, download packages, and do other tasks via a GUI rather than the command line. However, I …
Ubuntu server products offer more customization and are easier to replicate and use in a virtualized environment than Microsoft Windows Server 2012 or 2016, and are more cost-effective than both Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Microsoft Windows Server. The ease of setting up …
I think it's best suited for all the monolithic application where you just need a VM and you on top of that VM you need to install a compatible product. So it's best suited for those. Where's not suited. As I said, maybe I've seen in my organization mostly our internal application teams, they go for a different operating system for appliances or network maybe it might be due to the product compatibility, not with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but that's something maybe you should have a look or probably it's not a improvement anywhere.
If somebody whishes to be an IT professional, learning the basics of Linux is amust. Ubuntu [Linux] is one of the most beginner-friendly, widely supported, easy-to-use-relative-to-the-fact-that-its-still-linux OS on the market. As somebody who learned the basics of UNIX/LINUX on Ubuntu, it was a very good experience. It is customizable, has a lot of improvements over the years, and live up to be a viable alternative to any modern OS in 2021 as well.
I really love that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reliable, that it always seems to work well.
It's very secure.
I really appreciate that Red Hat keeps everything up to date and they are on top of security, mobilities, et cetera. I'd say those are my favorite things.
Well, one of the things, this ties right back to my previous answer from what it sounds like, the cloud platform for Insights doesn't currently have an easy way to generate CVE compliance reports, or do scans for where you have remediations required, but it does not currently produce those reports in a way that I could just hand off to our security team and be like, here's our compliance, here's where all the things are specifically because Red Hat does backporting of patches and a lot of security tools don't know how to handle that and think that we're vulnerable when we're not. So from everything I've heard, it's possible. That's why I'm excited for it. But it's not easily pushed button generated report yet. So we're working with them to get that in there.
RHEL has most of the features that are required by an ERP solution. If you need any additional packages, RHEL has a great repository and a very easy package installation/upgrade process.
Red Hat support has really come a long way in the last 10 years, The general support is great, and the specialized product support teams are extremely knowledgeable about their specific products. Response time is good and you never need to escalate.
We did not use the managed commercial support, but instead relied on community forums and official documentation. Ubuntu is very well documented across both instructional documentation from the developers themselves as well as informal support forums [ServerFault, YCombinator, Reddit]. It's easy enough to find an answer to any question you may have
The biggest thing about RHEL that makes it stand out for enterprise users is the support that we get from the vendor. Whereas with the other ones, you're basically left on your own. There's no official repo, there's no satellite for patching. You're very left on your own with the community.
Windows 10: Expensive, with more security problems, more difficult to keep updated and less variety of free / open source applications. Its use encourages bad information security practices. OpenSuse Linux: A different distribution at source (Suse Linux), use of rpm packages (with fewer repositories and incompatible with Ubuntu Linux dpkg packages), and whose main objective is to be a "testing ground" for its paid version / professional, SUSE enterprise Linux.
It's only been positive and like I said before, it's been positive because it removed tedious tasks and I think that's probably what it's designed to help do from what I can tell is just to get rid of the mundane tasks of a systems administrator. The things that you just don't want to waste time doing so you can actually use your brain for something useful.
Systems administration with Ubuntu is easy with little deep knowledge about it. Docs and community publications are great resources for any task you need to perform on any Ubuntu server and the organization can save several salaries of specialized sys admins in favor of more active roles.
Having been an Ubuntu user for many years personally, setting up new Ubuntu servers on my organization came with zero cost for me. I just deployed one instance from my hosting/cloud provider and started working right after it was running, no need to ask support or hire new staff for these tasks.
Replacing paid options with Ubuntu have also saved thousands of dollars on Windows Server licenses. I've migrated Windows/SQL Server based systems to Ubuntu/MySQL/PostgreSQL several times during my career and saved about USD 5000/year in licenses to many of them.