Hi Bill,
Bill Roddy wrote:
Mind if I jump in again? Not trying to pick a fight either. Scientific
Linux is not a "clone" of RHLE. It is RHLE, without the logos, and with
I would not take the word *clone* in a negative way. The goal of CentOS
and ScientificLinux are both stated to be RHEL compatible. This means
binary compatibility with RHEL. So if a vendors certifies a package as
RHEL compatible, that is the one to use for CentOS, SciLinux, etc. This
is really why CentOS and SciLinux *are* desireable distributions.
the latest Mozilla family available. It is, for all practical intents
and purposes, perpetual service for any chosen release, because many of
Says here 3 years of security updates available for a given release.
https://www.scientificlinux.org/about/future
Not sure why they would do that since RHEL offers 5 years of security
updates, and they release the SRPM's for their updates, so all SciLinux
needs to do is recompile.
the world's labs who use it have experiments that are ongoing for many
years and do not want their systems touched, except for security
releases. I honestly don't know if it's "better" or the same as CentOS,
because one hears a lot of good things about that project. But I do know
that CentOS isn't better than SL, because it simply couldn't be. There's
way too much horsepower behind SL for that to be the case.
I guess it really depends on what you want from your linux distro.
For my production servers, I want stability, timely security updates,
and long life-span before major upgrades. RHEL (clones) gives me that.
For my desktop, I'd be silly to run RHEL, and I don't. I like running
BE software. So I'm running SuSE 9.3 and will soon be upgrading to SuSE
10.0.
John
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
