On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:37:14 -0600 Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i am a newbie to Scientific Linux. for my project work i need to > > have RHEL. so i searched Google for Open alternatives and found 2 > > of my choice: CentOS and Scientific Linux. i liked Scientific > > Linux, may be because of my childhood love of Nuclear Physics and > > Astronomy :-) > > It depends. Are you trolling both the CentOS and Scientific Linux > mailling lists or are you looking for definitive answers. Hi Stephen, Why so many people are so touchy 'bout trolling? I recon every answer to troll questions makes the majority of "lurking" readers more knowledgeable. Isn't the effort worth of it? :) > Both CentOS and Scientific Linux have been built as stringently as > possible to the RHEL binaries. The RHEL binaries are built for > stability of a 7 year lifecycle. (...) But what about repos? Which one can I mix up with what? My first attempts to use SL went into failure as I "touched" the yumex crap (and ended furious for its slowness) and got too many red messages about dependencies in return. Perhaps I wanted to delete/install too many apps at a time (what is the best option then?). But taking into consideration the notorious yumex sluggishness I wasn't able to do anything useful. Why are ATrpms (and others) listed first than CentOS repos? CentOS repos are supposedly more similar to SL binaries after all. I must say frankly that I got nearly all repo addresses I could use for SL now, a few tips how to use them, and no knowledge which use first and why. Regards, pp -- Przemysław Pawełczyk (p2o2) - [EMAIL PROTECTED] P2O2 - http://pp.kv.net.pl, P2O2 Forum - http://www.p2o2.fora.pl/
pgpNoUCnZlZzL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
