Hey folks, I was just reminded of the Scientific distro, which on the surface appears to be quite similar to CentOS even when the developers over there are rather coy about which Enterprise Linux distro they base theirs on. I wonder if anyone here has done a comparison of the two that they'd care to share. I work in a Scientific Research Lab (Stem Cell Research) and am wondering if there is anything about the Scientific disto that might be better suited to our needs, even if it is only the fact that it is put together by people who work in similar environments and would therefore understand our needs better. I'm just starting to read up on it to see what I think and thought I would ask what others think. One thing I will have to look into of course is what kind of support there is - this list is absolutely fantastic for CentOS and that alone is worth a lot. cheers, -Alan -- ?Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV? ? ? ? ?? - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food"
On 14 November 2011 20:31, Alan McKay <alan.mckay at gmail.com> wrote:> Hey folks, > > I was just reminded of the Scientific distro, which on the surface > appears to be quite similar to CentOS even when the developers over > there are rather coy about which Enterprise Linux distro they base > theirs on.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Linux It is an other repackaging of the Upstream, with different goals in mind.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Alan McKay <alan.mckay at gmail.com> wrote:> > I was just reminded of the Scientific distro, which on the surface > appears to be quite similar to CentOS even when the developers over > there are rather coy about which Enterprise Linux distro they base > theirs on. > > I wonder if anyone here has done a comparison of the two that they'd > care to share. > > I work in a Scientific Research Lab (Stem Cell Research) and am > wondering if there is anything about the Scientific disto that might > be better suited to our needs, even if it is only the fact that it is > put together by people who work in similar environments and would > therefore understand our needs better. > > I'm just starting to read up on it to see what I think and thought I > would ask what others think. > > One thing I will have to look into of course is what kind of support > there is - this list is absolutely fantastic for CentOS and that alone > is worth a lot.CentOS attempts to be strictly/religiously compatible with upstream except for merging the workstation/server variations - to the point that it is supposed to be easy to buy a support contract and flip to RHEL for updates. SL makes some changes on purpose: http://www.scientificlinux.org/about/customize and makes strict compatibility less of a priority. But it is still a rebuild from the same sources and I would doubt that you'd see any practical difference in running any particular application under them. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Le 14/11/2011 21:31, Alan McKay a ?crit :> Hey folks, > > I was just reminded of the Scientific distro, which on the surface > appears to be quite similar to CentOS even when the developers over > there are rather coy about which Enterprise Linux distro they base > theirs on. > > I wonder if anyone here has done a comparison of the two that they'd > care to share. > > I work in a Scientific Research Lab (Stem Cell Research) and am > wondering if there is anything about the Scientific disto that might > be better suited to our needs, even if it is only the fact that it is > put together by people who work in similar environments and would > therefore understand our needs better. > > I'm just starting to read up on it to see what I think and thought I > would ask what others think. > > One thing I will have to look into of course is what kind of support > there is - this list is absolutely fantastic for CentOS and that alone > is worth a lot. > > cheers, > -Alan > >Hi Alan, One difference is that SL 6.1 has been releasd on July, 28. See : http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/rnotes/sl-release-notes-6.1.html The distrib is supported by Fermilab and CERN, and is in fact a rebuild of RHEL with very few elements added. Some which were added previously (Root...) are now in EPEL repository. There are at least two paid developpers to incure for releases and updates, which are said to be released "within a couple of days" : http://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/faq/errata Alain
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Scientific Linux 6.0 released (based on RHEL 6.0)
- adjusted means and adjusted standard errors after ANOVA
- vm ignores kickstart
- building llvm_Rel400 on Scientific Linux (RHEL) 7.3 x86_64
- Re: [libvirt] Libvirtd running as root tries to access oneadmin (OpenNebula) NFS mount but throws: error: can’t canonicalize path