g wrote: > Frode Petersen wrote: > <snip> > > Just curious, as I'm about to install one of them alongside F9: Is > there > > any reason to choose one over the other? My impression is that they are > > pretty much equivalent choices, but that might be a superficial > > observation for all I know. > > in fairness to centos, i tried it a few years back, but felt it a bit > awkward. i have been told that it has improved, but i have not tried it > again, so i can not offer comparison of it to sl [scientific linux]. The "funny" thing is...if you read the information on the Scientific Linux website you would see: "The base SL distribution is basically Enterprise Linux, recompiled from source." And while they can't say it..."Enterprise Linux" really means "Red Hat Enterprise Linux". And if you were to dig further you'd see that SL numbers their releases in lockstep with RHEL. Not only that...guess what CentOS is? Right it is RHEL that has been recompiled from source with all the RH icons, artwork, and other identifying marks and IPR stuff removed. So, I'm not sure why SL would be any less/more awkward than the equivalent level of either RHEL or CentOS. > > my reasons for having chosen sl are many. i read many pages of sl site, > and all of what i read gave me a good feeling about sl. > > 2 things that impressed me most where who put it together and using it; > fermi national accelerator laboratory > http://www.fnal.gov/ > and who else is using it; > cern - european organization for nuclear research > http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html > as noted on first page of sl site. > > i would hate to think that either fermi or cern would use something that > they did not feel totally safe with. So, Femi and CERN are both very happy with the bits thrown out by RH ... but just would like to have their own distribution with some addons (that RH cannot provide) for use in their environments to ensure compatibility. > > i do not consider what i do to be anywhere near as critical or > crucial, but > it is comforting to know that i am in 'good company' with my system > and data. > > as far as support, these people are 'professional'. what more can one > ask for? Since they chose to put together the RH bits then it follows that RH folks are just a professional. Right? > > as for software, this install is for internet use only, and i am using; > thunderbird version 2.0.0.16 (20080724) > firefox Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) > Gecko/2008071611 Red Hat/3.0.1-1.el5 Firefox/3.0.1 > konqueror 3.5.4-18.el5 red hat (using kde 3.5.4-16.el5 red hat) > > i will be installing sl on 3 other boxes, which will be servers for main > firewall, system router, and file server. from what i have seen so far, > i have no doubt that service will be what i desire. > > as for fedora, at this time i will be staying with f8. i am skipping f9 > and i do hope that f10 will be with less problems than what f9 has shown. > It is hardly a good idea to try and compare RHEL, CentOS, or SL (basically the same thing) with Fedora. Not a valid comparison. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
