The (enterprise, gov't) adoption decision-makers -- who take a
more
superficial view -- make a bigger distinction than you or I.
There are no enterprise 'labeled' deb-based distributions that I have
ever heard of.
There is a larger appearance of difference in the way these systems
are
supported...in the way an organization would look at the challenge of
configuring and updating a large number of systems...in the way the
distro vendors package these services. (Ubuntu's enterprise offering is
vapor yet, but...)
What difference? Red Hat-based distributions use kickstart for mass
deployment and can use yum or up2date for updates.
It is a nominal thing, but the distinction is being made. It may not
be
necessary but it exists. That's my thinking behind. It comes into the
conversation when organizations are defining their requirements and
making the Linux adoption decision. I don't actually say it doesnt
matter, because they are thinking about their resources. There's a
difference in the way I support Red Hat or Fedora or Ubuntu or JDS and
planning and money are naturally involved.
What difference? The only thing I can think of is that ubuntu is the
only deb-based distro with an automated installer.
-sv