<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">I cannot answer for any "EL builds," or any "upstream EL" for that matter.<br><br>However, I will point out two details from my own, personal/professional experience: <br>1. CentOS states they strive for bit-for-bit ABI/API compatibility with "upstream EL"<br>2. Scientific Linux does not, and has overridden "upstream EL" at times<br><br>I think #1 and #2 speak for themselves.<br><br>I also want to point out three more things from my own, personal/professional experience: <br>A. Scientific Linux repos can be used with Red Hat Enterprise Linux<br>B. Red Hat offers low-cost HPC subscriptions, including the RHEL6 "ComputeNode" build/entitlement<br>C. Red Hat also continues to offer a RHN developer subscription that is peanuts too<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><br><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Joe Tseng <joe_tseng@hotmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight:
bold;">To:</span></b> calug@unknownlamer.org<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thu, June 9, 2011 9:35:07 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> [CALUG] CentOS vs Scientific Linux<br></font><br>
<meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="off">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
--></style>
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.<br><br>I guess I'm just wondering if it is indeed the case SL can be used in prod environments... Has anyone compared the two?<br><br><br>If you type "Google" into <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google" class="ecxextiw" title="w:Google">Google</a>, you can break the Internet. -- Jen Barber<br><br><br>
<meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="on"></div></div>
</div></body></html>