Michael Semcheski wrote:
On 10/31/07, Paul Johnson <pauljohn32@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The unexpected bug introduced by frequent updates (much less
re-installs) have lost some of their charm for us.
...
In the past I've resisted adopting these longer lived distros because,
well, they get outdated and frustrating because they don't
interoperate with the rapidly changing part of the Linux world.
...
So maybe I don't want Scientific Linux or CentOS. Wish the
RedHat/Fedora Legacy group had not disbanded. For security updates on
a one year old distro, it was very handy.
I agree very much with your sentiment. On our servers we run
Scientific Linux. The desktops run Fedora.
The servers are great, but admittedly we use a much smaller set of
software. With the desktops, its either do updates frequently or do
them 500 at a time. I'd be a lot happier if the kernel was updated
less frequently (like with the server.)
Right now, I think the happy medium might be with the latest SL, and a
few applications like Firefox and Thunderbird compiled by hand in
/usr/local/...
Currently I care for SL5 (my current desktop at home), CentOS 4 (desktop
at work, and a server at home) and WBEL 4. Oh, and a RHL 7.3->CentOS3
for theboss@home. I should also mention some FC and an OpenSUSE10.2 laptop.
I would have no concerns about SL5 or CentOS5. Choose based on package
selection; SL5 may have the edge for you. Both are built from RHEL5
source with minimal changes, but SL5 has extras for the scientific
community.
There is no reason at all why you can't install SL, and use packages
from the CentOS repos, RHEL users do it fairly regularly.
I think SL supports Atheros wireless out of the box, and includes real
Java and some other stuff important to scientists.
The main difference I see between SL and CentOS is the size of the
communities and work force; Essentially, SL is done by (I think) two
people (but I think they're paid to do it) whilst CentOS, like Fedora,
is chiefly done by volunteers.
Both are supported by mailing lists, and I reckon if one's using
RHEL-Clone then hanging out on the relevant RHEL list is also appropriate.
There used to be Tao linux, and google may still know of it. It merged
with CentOS a while back.
WBEL is basically "what we use here, built from RHEL source. You may use
it, but don't come here for help." It was an okay choice when I
downloaded it, but I see no reason to prefer it now.
You could also look at SUSE, and maybe evaluate it. it's rpm-based, and
yast really is very nice. There's no SUSE-clone that I've noticed, but
OTOH the licence fees may be fairly modest for academe.
Academe should also check out RHEL prices; I haven't for some time, but
I think one can run RHEL for a modest cost (and get extremely modest
support).
As for upgrading, I think that all that's needed to upgrade from FC to
Tikanga-clone is to boot the media and go for it. That might be some
required magic (upgradeany os some such), and one should check ("rpm -qa
--last | less") for packages that didn't get upgraded and explore why
not. likely some will be orphaned, but those could be a problem however
you do it.
FC3->Tikanga-clone should be about the same upgrade as the (supported)
Nahant->Tikanga, and FC6->Tikanga like Tikanga->Tikanga, and I think
that's supported too.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
