On 12/29/20 10:42 AM, Simon Matter wrote: > While I agree to what you wrote, there are also reasons to stay with a > choice of distribution you made. It's to protect knowledge, to not double > the work with internally used special software, prevent from doing wrong > decisions with far reaching consequences and so on. It sometimes need a > trigger to rethink hard. In your list only the first point leads to RHEL > family, and this point doesn't apply to our current environment. While it > was always clear that we _may_ change distribution in future, no concrete > steps have been done and nothing has really forced us to do something. Sure, it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Some companies already have processes and extensive tooling around RHEL, from deployment to packaging big software suites in RPM repos for customers (CentOS isn't even allowed, every piece of equipment has to be supported by the designated vendor). I think RHEL makes a lot of sense for traditional enterprises, and I hope Red Hat prospers - I don't even want to think what the Linux ecosystem would look like if they disappeared: every distro benefits from the huge contributions made by Red Hat upstream, from the kernel and gcc to Gnome and Ansible, not to speak of Fedora and the excellent documentation written by Red Hat employees. Even if you use libvirt on Debian, you'll end up consulting Red Hat documentation and use upstream features and fixes made by Red Hat. I hope they're here to stay.