On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Yasha Karant <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am posting the item below not to start any "flame wars" nor to be any > mythological creature from Middle Earth or anywhere else, but rather to put > forward what I have found from one "professional" analysis of the RHEL > situation -- and not an analysis for which I have sufficient data to > support. In the article below, the conclusion "push" seems to mean that > either RHEL clone is the same. Rather than simply including a URL, I am > posting the entire article for any later historical archiving -- unlike > academic journals and articles that exist for posterity, much of the > commentary of the computer technology areas seems very ephemeral. > Nonetheless, when RHEL 7 and its clones come about, there may be interest in > examining the historical commentaries, just as there is in discussing any > evolving technology (e.g., HEP detectors). For my personal choice for > X86-64 systems that need to support 64 bit operations, I have switched to SL > 6 ; for systems that can live with IA-32 operations (e.g., my laptop and > other work computers), I am staying with CentOS 5.x for now -- when these > switch to RHEL 6.x, I suspect I will be switching to SL 6 simply because I > do not want to support multiple environments for production. > > From URL: http://lostinopensource.**wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-** > clone-wars-centos-vs-**scientific-linux/<http://lostinopensource.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-clone-wars-centos-vs-scientific-linux/> > > snip.... The author of that blog is on our forum and we are currently discussing some points about it. There are some things about SL he wasn't aware of....nice guy, but he seems to be basically a CentOS fan so myself and others have given our opinions and mentioned what he got wrong. It's on the SLF :) I'm done with it....:)
