Scientific Linux, the Great Distro ...
| This forum is proudly powered by Scientific Linux 6 | SL website Download SL Help Search Members |
| Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
   |
Scientific Linux, the Great Distro ...| toracat |
Posted: Mar 23 2012, 10:58 PM
|
|||
 SLF Geek  Group: Members Posts: 179 Member No.: 11 Joined: 10-April 11  |
... With the Wrong Name
 A very nice review about Scientific Linux appeared here. Be sure to read the bottom line:
-------------------- ELRepo: repository specialized in hardware support for EL
|
|||
 
|
||||
| wearetheborg |
Posted: Mar 24 2012, 05:01 AM
|
|
 SLF Advocate Group: Members Posts: 352 Member No.: 18 Joined: 11-April 11 |
But its not exactly a clone, it doesnt maintain 100% binary compatibility with RHEL unlike CentOS.
ANyone know what do they change? With RH not providing the detalls of their changes in updates, it was supposed to make making changes to their sources harder. How does SL bypass this hurdle? -------------------- |
|
|
|
||
| toracat |
Posted: Mar 24 2012, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
SLF Geek Group: Members Posts: 179 Member No.: 11 Joined: 10-April 11 |
CentOS is not 100% binary compatible with RHEL. Both Scientific Linux and CentOS aim to be 100% binary compatible but neither is perfect. If I am asked which distro does it better, I would say, "they are equally good". -------------------- ELRepo: repository specialized in hardware support for EL
|
|||
|
|
||||
| Nathan |
Posted: Mar 24 2012, 02:54 PM
|
|
 SLF Geek Group: Members Posts: 290 Member No.: 928 Joined: 15-October 11 |
The author clearly does not understand the point of Scientific Linux at all. Even though it is perfectly possible, this is not a distro intended to be used by the masses.
|
|
|
|
||
| wearetheborg |
Posted: Mar 25 2012, 01:24 AM
|
|||
|
SLF Advocate Group: Members Posts: 352 Member No.: 18 Joined: 11-April 11 |
Hmmm, I thought it was! -------------------- |
|||
|
|
||||
| toracat |
Posted: Mar 25 2012, 12:46 PM
|
|||||
|
SLF Geek Group: Members Posts: 179 Member No.: 11 Joined: 10-April 11 |
'100% binary compatibility' is practically impossible to achieve. This is in part because the build environment is not disclosed by upstream (understandably) and rebuilders must do some guessing or 'trial & error' work. Often times certain versions of packages that were never released are required for the building. I have provided some more explanaitons on the CentOS mailing list [1]. For example, in CentOS, the following issue has been identified [and subsequently fixed]: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4995 Definition of certain variables did not match TUV (because it is not known) causing incompatibility, and a number of packages needed rebuilding. FYI, this issue did not exist in SL-6. [1] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-November/119250.html -------------------- ELRepo: repository specialized in hardware support for EL
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| redman |
Posted: Mar 26 2012, 10:29 AM
|
|||
 SLF Admin Group: Admins Posts: 1659 Member No.: 2 Joined: 8-April 11 |
All changes made are documented in the release notes. -------------------- What is SL? - Forum Rules - Info on 3rd Party Repos - How to post images - How to post large text / config files
Desktop: Asus P5QPL-AM, Intel Dual-Core E6500, 4GB DDR2, Asus GeForce GT 430 1GB, SL6.4 x86_64 Test box: Intel S5000PSL, 2x Intel Xeon E5310, 8GB ECC DDR2 FB-Dimm, Asus GeForce GT 220 1GB, SL6.4 x86_64 |
|||
|
||||
 |
|