Scientific Linux 6.1 Beta 1 Release discussion

(Why was http://scientificlinuxforum.org/index.php?showtopic=640 locked?)

What is "golden image" in that announcement?

Troy is a moderator here, but being the lead developer of SL his time is not necessarily his own, so he locks the threads of posted announcements so it doesn't turn into time consuming banter. Those were terms we were more than willing to accept to receive direct announcements on this forum.

Golden Image? Not sure really, but I'm sure someone else here knows I'm definitely looking forward to getting the 6.1 update through the normal channel.

Mr. 'Borg...do you have SL installed yet? Just curious my friend. I know you're pretty methodical about changing distros

Announcements made by Troy Dawson are for informational purposes only.
He was willing to post them here too (as he does on the official mailinglist).
But it was agreed that those threads will be locked.

I would assume that "Golden Images" are as close to what TUV ships as possible.

That would be my conclusion too

OK...but what are they? RHEL release is not the goldent image according to above, so what is it? Is it SL or something in between RHEL and SL?

Not yet, waiting for SL6.1 (and hopefully a guide on how to install, how to set up repos etc).
My Ubuntu 10.10 install is running along fine, and repos have everything under the sun; valgrind, steel bank common lisp, SLIME for emacs integration, eclipse, wireless works out of the box...aptitude means no repo or dependency hassles..so if SL install is difficult, or there are repo hassles...its a negative.

Not yet, waiting for SL6.1 (and hopefully a guide on how to install, how to set up repos etc).
My Ubuntu 10.10 install is running along fine, and repos have everything under the sun; valgrind, steel bank common lisp, SLIME for emacs integration, eclipse, wireless works out of the box...aptitude means no repo or dependency hassles..so if SL install is difficult, or there are repo hassles...its a negative.

The SL install is extremely easy, from the Live Media no less. That's part of reason it's climbing up DW 11 notches in 2 months

Yes, but I gather the headaches come after install from the multiple repos, mixing & matching SL6 repos with Fedora repos....If only that issue can be sorted out, it would be awesome.

Yes, but I gather the headaches come after install from the multiple repos, mixing & matching SL6 repos with Fedora repos....If only that issue can be sorted out, it would be awesome.

It's not as bad as you read. You install a script from package manager that sets up the addt'l repos, then turn them all on when installing the codecs, then turn them off. It's that easy.

Yes, but I gather the headaches come after install from the multiple repos, mixing & matching SL6 repos with Fedora repos....If only that issue can be sorted out, it would be awesome.

It's not as bad as you read. You install a script from package manager that sets up the addt'l repos, then turn them all on when installing the codecs, then turn them off. It's that easy.

So codecs are the only thing which require the additional repos?
Media players, flash, other software are all on SL repos?

Yes, but I gather the headaches come after install from the multiple repos, mixing & matching SL6 repos with Fedora repos....If only that issue can be sorted out, it would be awesome.

It's not as bad as you read. You install a script from package manager that sets up the addt'l repos, then turn them all on when installing the codecs, then turn them off. It's that easy.

So codecs are the only thing which require the additional repos?
Media players, flash, other software are all on SL repos?

You might have to turn on a repo for a package, and then turn it off again....maybe...I can't remember actually what I would have done that for. Some packages have been compiled for us, some you find on various rpm sites and are easily installed....

In fairness, it can be a bit tricky when compared to Ubuntu or even Fedora, which has rpmfusion for most things, livna for dvdcss and that's about it.

In contrast, we have repoforge (nee rpmforge), atrpms and epel, any of which might conflict with each other. For some of us, for example, rpmforge might be fine, but they have an older version of say, ffmpeg or mplayer. Others might decide they want atrpms, which have newer versions of those packages, but then, find they need something from rpmforge which conflicts. So, at this point, it's a bit tricky, and not as smooth as some others.

On the other hand, like a lot of things, once you're used to it, and get to know which packages _you_ want, it won't be that tricky. For example, I've found that I'm able to play and transcode all the things I need with rpmforge and handbrakeCLI built from source. Leigh, on these forums, as well as Fedora's, feels that repoforge's ffmpeg, mplayer, and some others are too old for his needs, and uses atrpms, I think, or possibly builds them himself, as he's pretty darn good at that stuff.

So.....

It's something you will, of course, decide for yourself, but though it is a bit more complex than some other systems, it's not as bad as reading about might make it seem.

I am using RPMforge Repoforge for all additional video codecs and vlc videoplayer.
Works without a problem.

Doesnt this create a nightemarish situation when updating packages?
One has to remember which packagaes came from which repos....

Again, it's not as bad as it is to read about it. There are various things that one gets used to doing, such as, for example, using the priorities plugin (See package management on the CentOS wiki how to section). In addition, rpmforge, (oops, repoforge), has an rf suffix.

If I start explaining the various possibilities, it WILL sound like a nightmare, but all I can say is that it really isn't, if one keeps in mind my previous caveat, that it is, unfortunately, somewhat more complex than some other distribution. (Sidebar--I've read tha t Apple employees are supposed to use, rather than "unfortunately", "It turns out that".)

If you mix all possible repos, yes.
If you mix the proper repos and be selective in how much you use, than it isn't a problem.

What would be the reason to switch from Debian to SL6.1?
Advantages of debian:
--easy repos,
--massive availibility of packages.
--Stability.
--3 year support
--Ubuntu support community can be used.

What things can SL6.1 offer than Debian cant?

Switching from one distro to another is not something you "just do".
You switch because of valid reasons. Like you do not like the path your current distro is going. You like the software of the other one better, etc. Debian and SL both are Linux, but both are also different in approach of package management. Someone who dreams Debian pkgs and who doesn't know RPM (or visa versa) will have to start learning again. If you use Debian and want to switch to SL6.1 "just because it is new" than in my opinion you will not find yourself at home. Because in time Debian will become newer than SL and than what?

Personally I can't think of any simple reason to switch from Debian to SL (except the bigger ones I outlined).

But one doesnt need to "learn" debian package management. I have used Debian/Ubuntu for years, and all I know is.
aptitude install xyz
aptitude update
aptitude upgrade
aptitude remove xyz
apt-file search xyz
aptitude clean

The repo system and consistency of Debian makes it a breeze.

Let me frame my question another way. Why would someone NOT switch over to Debian, from SL, tempted by Debian's easy package management, and not having to deal with repo confusion of SL?

One good reason at present, at least in the NE US, is jobs (and support). Most Linux sysadmin jobs around here are RH based, so one wants to stay familiar with it.


I think the FreeBSD myths page has the best attitude on this. To the statement <whatever>BSD is better than other systems the answer is, that is user opinion only. To the statement other systems are better than <whatever>BSD, the same, that is user opinion only.

In another long discussion, years ago, over mutt vs. pine, someone came up with the statement, people look for technical reasons to explain what is, in the end, an emotional decision. In many cases, one just "likes" the RH way or the Debian way better. Maybe they had a bad experience with, for example, Debian, or a Debian mailing list, or whatever, so, for no real reason, they just don't like Debian too much anymore.

RHEL and its offshoots, including ScientificLinux, are, in my humble opinion, probably better suited for the enterprise environment, where the latest isn't necessary if it works well, and multimedia is seldom that important, especially on a server.

My short answer (which if I were less lazy, I'd cut and put at the top), is, that aside from jobs as mentioned above (though one does see some Debian and Ubuntu ones, the vast majority are RH), is that some folks simply like the RH method better, and, as I mentioned, when you're used to it, the multiple repos aren't as bad as they seem.

Could you clarify on what you mean by the RH method?


TBH, I'm considering SL just because knowing about RH systems might be a useful skill to have, i.e., the first reason you mentioned.

Let me frame my question another way. Why would someone NOT switch over to Debian, from SL, tempted by Debian's easy package management, and not having to deal with repo confusion of SL?

To me there is no repo confusion of SL. Turning on the repos ELRepo, RPMForge and ATrpms is not more difficult than turning on Medibuntu with Ubuntu to install codecs.

Same difference. I was weened on APT, but a yum -help gets you up to speed quickly. I had used Fedora though quite a bit, but still the transition wasn't difficult imo. I switched because I considered SL more stable and secure than Debian. Plus SL was fast, so for me I was all over it

Why so?
I would have expected Debian to be more stable...

SL, being based on RHEL might have more security management tools (another reason I want to dabble in SL)

Why so?
I would have expected Debian to be more stable...

SL, being based on RHEL might have more security management tools (another reason I want to dabble in SL)

I can't prove it....I've never had a crash with SL, that's really all I can attest to. I might have "overspoke" there. They are probably equal. But it's definitely more stable than Debian testing

I might add that SL is supported much longer than Debian....which, if I remember correctly, promises support for one year after the last stable release....no?