On 6/11/07, Przemysław Pawełczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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? :)
I am only touchy about it when the same post is made to 2 similar
lists with only slight additions/changes made to make the article more
interesting to the suspected audience. Also when 'strong' opinions are
added about something sucking it is a standard meme for 'getting an
argument going' versus looking for particular discussion
> 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.
Dealing with repositories is always a tricky matter.. I normally make
sure my system is working to how I want it without repositories.. and
then try to figure out which repo's have the data I want in them, and
what audience/customer each one serves. After that, I enable/add the
ones I figure meet those needs.. but sometimes have to 'back' off for
some reason.
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.
The CentOS repos would not be listed as they mostly contain the same
data as what SciLin already contains.. and would not be useful
additions. The CentOS-plus might be useful, but mixing and matching
OS's is not for the faint of heart [did SciLin add a kernel patch for
their OS for CERN clusters...? did CentOS try to add it as a seperate
module? etc]
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
