- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
If you or anyone is really going to suggest that you have higher uptime or reliability demands than enterprise clients who actually Linux on a day-to-day basis to run their businesses
There is no significant distinction between Linux for server and Linux for desktop when excluding for certain edge cases. Calling Linux unstable is simply false by Microsoft's own admission.
Just about every rolling-release version of Linux is horrendously unstable shitware that manages to create new and hilarious ways to break computers on a regular basis. Seriously, fuck off with this shit. Some of these distros break so frequently that you might as well be using Windows 95. Claiming otherwise just shows you know next to nothing about enterprise Linux or its users.
Enterprise Linux users generally won't touch rolling-release distros, to the point that when the CentOS Project announced that they were prematurely EOLing CentOS 8 and going rolling-release, it caused a minor panic as everyone rushed to find a replacement (btw, it's Rocky or Alma). For servers, enterprises primarily rely on RHEL, with SLES as a distant second, and on workstations, Ubuntu LTS shows up now and then; some ISVs will test on it along with RHEL and SLES. Most of these random goofball distros that the "Switch to Linux!" crowd insists are a replacement for Windows are trash, and major ISVs won't even try to support them.