[CALUG] CentOS vs Scientific Linux

[Bryan J Smith]

I cannot answer for any "EL builds," or any "upstream EL" for that matter.

However, I will point out two details from my own, personal/professional 
experience:  

1.  CentOS states they strive for bit-for-bit ABI/API compatibility with 
"upstream EL"
2.  Scientific Linux does not, and has overridden "upstream EL" at times

I think #1 and #2 speak for themselves.

I also want to point out three more things from my own, personal/professional 
experience:  

A.  Scientific Linux repos can be used with Red Hat Enterprise Linux
B.  Red Hat offers low-cost HPC subscriptions, including the RHEL6 "ComputeNode" 
build/entitlement
C.  Red Hat also continues to offer a RHN developer subscription that is peanuts 
too

In the case of "A", I know of people running Red Hat subscriptions and then 
tapping the Scientific Repo additives.  That way they have the fully supported 
Red Hat platform base, and then what they want plunked from Scientific Linux.  
Add in the "B" option, and the costs are actually fairly inexpensive overall if 
you need a HPC solution, especially with the dedicated "ComputeNode" 
build/entitlement in RHEL6.

In the case of "C", Red Hat has always offered a low-cost RHN developer 
subscription as well.  This allows open source and other projects to get a RHN 
entitlement, updates, etc... so they can target the platform ("EL") in general 
(in addition to its also including all middleware, like JBoss, including RPM 
packaged and discrete JBoss).  E.g., instead of having to wait on CentOS to 
release a new major/minor update, one can start working on the latest Red Hat 
Enterprise Linux directly, and time the release to coincide with "EL rebuilds," 
like CentOS, as well.  The nice side-effect of this is that one can target both 
a freely redistributable EL rebuild as well as a commercial supported solution, 
testing against both, and not just an EL rebuild, and hoping it works with Red 
Hat Enterprise Linux.

If you already have a Microsoft TechNet or, even more so, MSDN subscription, 
then a RHN developer subscription is a no-brainer, especially since it's only 2 
figures, compared to 3 to 4 for Microsoft TechNet to MSDN.  That always shocks 
me when people say they have TechNet or MSDN, but don't want to pay for a RHN 
developer subscription.





________________________________
From: Joe Tseng <joe_tseng at hotmail.com>
To: calug at unknownlamer.org
Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 9:35:07 AM
Subject: [CALUG] CentOS vs Scientific Linux

  The response to my previous post has me wondering...  Does anyone have 
preferences as to what they'd rather use - CentOS or Scientific Linux?  I know 
CentOS is very stable feature-wise, and people like how it can be used in prod 
environments for a long, long time, but OMG it's ANCIENT.  Meanwhile I get the 
impression although the release cycles for SL is faster, since it's still based 
on RHEL it should be rock solid as well.

I guess I'm just wondering if it is indeed the case SL can be used in prod 
environments...  Has anyone compared the two?


If you type "Google" into Google, you can break the Internet.  -- Jen Barber
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/attachments/20110609/53bf9a89/attachment.htm