On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
I run Scientific Linux, which trails both CentOS and RHEL. SL isn't
about compatability with the latest hardware, but about very stable
platforms with very long term support (provided by groups at
FermiLabs and CERN). SL runs on giant supercomputer clusters, for
enormous numeric jobs that can run for weeks or months. Stability
is essential.
However, since SL and CentOS derive from the same RHEL sources, if I
need to add an application or upgrade a library, I can usually use
the CentOS or RHEL package. I hope this move does not damage that
compatability.
Scientific Linux has slightly different goals than CentOS. The
difference won't matter in most situations, but it's worth noting:
-> CentOS aims for 100% binary compatibility with RHEL.
-> SL aims for source compatibility with RHEL.
One of the reasons it took the CentOS folks so much longer to release
their version of 6.0 than the SL folks is that the CentOS devs had to
reverse engineer the build process and bootstrap all the dependencies
in exactly the right order. Evidently, that's a tricky process.
I suspect the difference would mainly come into play when third-party
apps are being used -- though there may be some odd corner cases when
open source packages would also behave differently.
--
Paul Heinlein
[email protected]
45°38' N, 122°6' W
_______________________________________________
PLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
