The reasons I've are: Need to support commercial packages Linux is more mainstream Debian has a maintenance program in place (ie, security patches are back ported to supported platforms) Longetivity of a particular level of release
And... Hell of a lot of "opensource" programmers think cross-platform means it compiles on *both* fedora and *debian*!!!! On 12/16/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 03:36:21AM +0000, Gilbert Fernandes wrote: > > > Where I work right now, we have bsd and debian on servers. > > All user computers run debian or mandrake right now (and > > we're going to move those to debian). We dont let them choose. > > It is mandatory. We use bsd and some debian on servers, and > > they will use free software on computers. > > > > The main reason is not freedom or fighting proprietary > > software. It is (1) getting work done and (2) when we got > > unix-alike everywhere it makes our job as system admins > > and network admins easier. > > I curious (and not wanting to start a new flame war) about the decision > tree to put debain on the workstations instead of BSD everywhere. What > factors were involved? Where there logistical issues that debian sovled > better in this case than BSD? Is it OpenBSD or another? > > Doug. > > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
