Sent from T-Mobile G2, please excuse any typos On Jul 23, 2011 1:15 PM, "Yasha Karant" <[email protected]> wrote: > > A vendor professional systems person whom I know has been requested to install SL 6 on a system that is being configured for us. In a discussion with him, he gave me the opinion that his (vendor's) experience with SL is that it is "buggier" than CentOS, and CentOS often "fixes" RHEL bugs. I did not understand this in that the base distribution without extensions of both CentOS and SL is RHEL with only the artwork being changed in the sense that all RedHat logos or use of RedHat licensed-for-fee binary distribution repositories have been removed, replaced by the appropriate entities for the distribution in question. Red Hat is required to release full source from which the entire distribution can be built for personal use -- but not redistributed without removal of the RedHat copyrighted logos, etc. -- under the GPL, Linux licenses, etc. > > Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that CentOS does the best job of testing the distribution in pre-CentOS release -- although both start from the RHEL sources. I commented that SL is professionally supported by a joint Fermilab-CERN effort with paid professionals doing the work, not the more or less volunteer organization of CentOS, just as the Red Hat source is developed by paid professionals. Although the future is unclear for Fermilab with the imminent decommissioning of the Fermilab accelerator, this professional status currently is correct. > > I fully understand that individuals may disagree with the opinion, and that specific organizations may have official statements that disagree with the opinion -- I only am interested in the "facts". For anyone on this list who is familiar with the post-RH release handling and qualification/testing procedures of RHEL source by either or both organizations, or by the Princeton University distribution of RHEL, direct comments would be appreciated. Is there any factual data, including procedural differences, to support the opinion that I have been given? > > Yasha Karant
My opinion basically is that CentOS has proved itself slow to update in the last year but if I may ask: Who told you FNAL was being "decommsioned". There are at least three FNAL employees on this list who can respond to that :) I've heard no such thing. Maybe you are confusing it with the Space Shuttle :) Oh. SL is not "buggier" than CentOS. In fact someone on the CentOS forum stated they had problems with ver 6.0 and wouldn't install until 6.1 was released. I don't have the details of that statement or don't know if its purely oparator errors Others here I'm sure can shine more light on your concerns.
