Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 22:44 UTC
Linux "Scientific Linux is an unknown gem, one of the best Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. The name works against it because it's not for scientists; rather it's maintained by science organizations. Let's kick the tires on the latest release and see what makes it special."
Thread beginning with comment 511731
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: better devs than CentOS
by rklrkl on Sat 24th Mar 2012 10:53 UTC in reply to "better devs than CentOS "
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

CentOS did have a "blip" before releasing 6 (there was also an issue with 5.X releases coinciding with 6). However, if you hung on with CentOS like I did, they've fixed the update issues in fine style now.

Firstly, they introduced a Continuous Repo for both CentOS 5 and 6, which provides the important updates from the next point release very quickly, allowing the CentOS devs to spend more time working on that next point release.

Secondly, they sped up the whole build process for the next point release, so much so that CentOS 6.2 came out only 2 weeks after RHEL 6.2 and well ahead (2 months!) of Scientific Linux 6.2. The thing I like about CentOS is that it strives for 100% binary compatibility with RHEL, which Scientific Linux doesn't. Hence anything certified for RHEL is also going to work out of the box with CentOS, again not true for SL.

CentOS is now, IMHO, the preferred RHEL clone and it's probably time that Scientific Linux merged with CentOS because we really don't need more than one RHEL clone (and we certainly don't need Oracle's clone either, that's for sure!).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: better devs than CentOS
by NuxRo on Sat 24th Mar 2012 11:19 in reply to "RE: better devs than CentOS "
NuxRo Member since:
2010-09-25

+10000000000000000... except I'm glad SL is still around, competition is good. But we can definitely do without Oracle, this one can fsck off and die.

Edited 2012-03-24 11:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I'm really sort of curious how much the 100% binary compatibility really matters. Does anyone have any examples of a piece of software that has ever worked on CentOS but not Scientific?

I know many people that have RHEL in production, but use CentOS in development to save a bit on licenses. For them, it makes sense to use the closest possible OS to RHEL, which is CentOS. Those kinds of things are good to be paranoid about.

My current employer does not use a RHEL clone, but another distro. We do routinely get bits of source code ( drivers/utils for some exotic hardware) that are RHEL certified. That doen't work ( mainly due to kernel versions, gnulibc versions ect) and have some interesting security holes. Im almost glad we run into the obvious versioning problems so it forces us to look at the whole code base to find the security implications, rather than just installing the RHEL certified software and walking away after a successful install.

Reply Parent Score: 3

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I have nothing personal against the people making or using CentOS. Its Karanbir's project, and he is free to run it as he sees fit. But the reason I left is that the dev group is dysfunctional and really doesn't care to change. The name, Community Enterprise OS, is completely wrong. It should be Karanbir's Hobby OS. The main problem with the release of EL 6 has still not been addressed as far as I know. And that is to have some transparency in the build process. There is no good reason to keep everything secret. As for the binary differences, I have yet to find an example of something that worked on RHEL or CentOS but not on SL.

Reply Parent Score: 2