Centos or Scientific Linux Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara ...
Coin Game with infinite paradox
Etymology of 見舞い
Help Recreating a Table
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
Does using the Inspiration rules for character defects encourage My Guy Syndrome?
Why these surprising proportionalities of integrals involving odd zeta values?
Im stuck and having trouble with ¬P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q
enable https on private network
What came first? Venom as the movie or as the song?
Providing direct feedback to a product salesperson
Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?
What helicopter has the most rotor blades?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Does Prince Arnaud cause someone holding the Princess to lose?
Where is Bhagavad Gita referred to as Hari Gita?
Assertions In A Mock Callout Test
Trying to enter the Fox's den
/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls
Why is one lightbulb in a string illuminated?
Why did Bronn offer to be Tyrion Lannister's champion in trial by combat?
How to ask rejected full-time candidates to apply to teach individual courses?
How is an IPA symbol that lacks a name (e.g. ɲ) called?
Who can become a wight?
How to keep bees out of canned beverages?
Centos or Scientific Linux
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
2019 Community Moderator Election Results
Why I closed the “Why is Kali so hard” questionPackage repository for which Fedora version would be best match for RHEL / CentOS / Scientific Linux 6.0?To-do's after installing Scientific-Linux 6.1 for Desktop purposesScientific Linux install ISO hashes?Canon iP3600 under Scientific LinuxRunning programs as root with my own password in Scientific Linux/Red Hat/Fedora/CentOSFresh Install Scientific Linux No Operating SystemDo I need Nautilus on RedHat / CentOS / Scientific Linux 6?Bluejeans on 32bit Scientific LinuxScientific Linux / CentOS Screen sharingInstall ScicosLab Scientific Linux
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
When I need to create a new server I've always chosen Centos mainly for it's compatibility with Red Hat which i consider the standard de-facto for the general purpose linux server.
Now the problem is that Red Hat 6 has been out for quite a while and there is no sign of the Centos 6 (event Centos 5.6 iso is still missing).
As in the need to create a new server what will you do? Stay whit the old Centos 5.5 or switch to the recently released Scientific Linux 6.0?
I looked on SL 6.0 website and they declare great attention to compatibility with RH, I've never tried it by myself so I just wanted someone's real life opinion.
centos rhel distribution-choice scientific-linux
add a comment |
When I need to create a new server I've always chosen Centos mainly for it's compatibility with Red Hat which i consider the standard de-facto for the general purpose linux server.
Now the problem is that Red Hat 6 has been out for quite a while and there is no sign of the Centos 6 (event Centos 5.6 iso is still missing).
As in the need to create a new server what will you do? Stay whit the old Centos 5.5 or switch to the recently released Scientific Linux 6.0?
I looked on SL 6.0 website and they declare great attention to compatibility with RH, I've never tried it by myself so I just wanted someone's real life opinion.
centos rhel distribution-choice scientific-linux
add a comment |
When I need to create a new server I've always chosen Centos mainly for it's compatibility with Red Hat which i consider the standard de-facto for the general purpose linux server.
Now the problem is that Red Hat 6 has been out for quite a while and there is no sign of the Centos 6 (event Centos 5.6 iso is still missing).
As in the need to create a new server what will you do? Stay whit the old Centos 5.5 or switch to the recently released Scientific Linux 6.0?
I looked on SL 6.0 website and they declare great attention to compatibility with RH, I've never tried it by myself so I just wanted someone's real life opinion.
centos rhel distribution-choice scientific-linux
When I need to create a new server I've always chosen Centos mainly for it's compatibility with Red Hat which i consider the standard de-facto for the general purpose linux server.
Now the problem is that Red Hat 6 has been out for quite a while and there is no sign of the Centos 6 (event Centos 5.6 iso is still missing).
As in the need to create a new server what will you do? Stay whit the old Centos 5.5 or switch to the recently released Scientific Linux 6.0?
I looked on SL 6.0 website and they declare great attention to compatibility with RH, I've never tried it by myself so I just wanted someone's real life opinion.
centos rhel distribution-choice scientific-linux
centos rhel distribution-choice scientific-linux
edited Mar 12 '11 at 15:37
Gilles
549k13111181632
549k13111181632
asked Mar 12 '11 at 15:36
TerenzioTerenzio
3113
3113
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Both projects, of course, are binary-compatible rebuilds from the source provided by Red Hat. The primary differences are in the development/build model.
CentOS only makes changes to remove Red Hat branding, or very occasionally as a last measure to get something to build. They aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Scientific Linux makes more customizations and additions, for example building OpenAFS packages. (They do keep the SRPMs for these separate, though.)
CentOS is a "community" distribution, but it's really built and maintained by a small (but active) group of volunteer developers in a closed manner. The lack of communication from this group is sometimes frustrating and I think a problem they need to solve. Scientific Linux is much more open in its development model, and it's a lot easier to see what's going on.
In my impression, Scientific Linux is a lot more likely to accept "get it working" hacks, and CentOS a bit more careful, even if it means delay — as in the case of the CentOS 6 release.
Both are in production use at a lot of serious institutions. I don't think the delay of the CentOS 6 release is a huge cause for concern — it's just the way things are. (I think prioritizing 5.6 was the right move, since that's blocking some security updates. The fact that that's not done yet is more worrying.) Hopefully after the actual work of getting the release out the door is done there can be some evaluation and maybe some changes made in communication of status. But I also think you won't go wrong deciding to use Scientific Linux now. They're basically interchangeable, after all, and it shouldn't be terribly painful to switch if you change your mind later.
If your system is on the front lines and is mission-critical for your business, buying a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription should also be on your list of options to consider. It's pricey, but not that pricey all considered, and by their nature CentOS and Scientific Linux always have some latency in getting security updates out the door.
add a comment |
Oracle Linux has the same close update repositories as Red Hat.
I have two kind of servers, mission critical and not. I usually use the least critical servers to try out the new features to be ready when I need to create a new mission critical machine (usually with a RH license), this is the main reason for wich I usually try out the latest RH clone available.
They usually aren't on the frontline.
add a comment |
Use CentOS, because the development of Scientific Linux is discontinued (here the mailing list announcement).
New contributor
add a comment |
It all depends if you need the newer functionality, if not I would stick with Centos.
Bear in mind the Red Hat Support lifecycle when making your decision.
You could also consider Oracle Linux
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9149%2fcentos-or-scientific-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Both projects, of course, are binary-compatible rebuilds from the source provided by Red Hat. The primary differences are in the development/build model.
CentOS only makes changes to remove Red Hat branding, or very occasionally as a last measure to get something to build. They aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Scientific Linux makes more customizations and additions, for example building OpenAFS packages. (They do keep the SRPMs for these separate, though.)
CentOS is a "community" distribution, but it's really built and maintained by a small (but active) group of volunteer developers in a closed manner. The lack of communication from this group is sometimes frustrating and I think a problem they need to solve. Scientific Linux is much more open in its development model, and it's a lot easier to see what's going on.
In my impression, Scientific Linux is a lot more likely to accept "get it working" hacks, and CentOS a bit more careful, even if it means delay — as in the case of the CentOS 6 release.
Both are in production use at a lot of serious institutions. I don't think the delay of the CentOS 6 release is a huge cause for concern — it's just the way things are. (I think prioritizing 5.6 was the right move, since that's blocking some security updates. The fact that that's not done yet is more worrying.) Hopefully after the actual work of getting the release out the door is done there can be some evaluation and maybe some changes made in communication of status. But I also think you won't go wrong deciding to use Scientific Linux now. They're basically interchangeable, after all, and it shouldn't be terribly painful to switch if you change your mind later.
If your system is on the front lines and is mission-critical for your business, buying a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription should also be on your list of options to consider. It's pricey, but not that pricey all considered, and by their nature CentOS and Scientific Linux always have some latency in getting security updates out the door.
add a comment |
Both projects, of course, are binary-compatible rebuilds from the source provided by Red Hat. The primary differences are in the development/build model.
CentOS only makes changes to remove Red Hat branding, or very occasionally as a last measure to get something to build. They aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Scientific Linux makes more customizations and additions, for example building OpenAFS packages. (They do keep the SRPMs for these separate, though.)
CentOS is a "community" distribution, but it's really built and maintained by a small (but active) group of volunteer developers in a closed manner. The lack of communication from this group is sometimes frustrating and I think a problem they need to solve. Scientific Linux is much more open in its development model, and it's a lot easier to see what's going on.
In my impression, Scientific Linux is a lot more likely to accept "get it working" hacks, and CentOS a bit more careful, even if it means delay — as in the case of the CentOS 6 release.
Both are in production use at a lot of serious institutions. I don't think the delay of the CentOS 6 release is a huge cause for concern — it's just the way things are. (I think prioritizing 5.6 was the right move, since that's blocking some security updates. The fact that that's not done yet is more worrying.) Hopefully after the actual work of getting the release out the door is done there can be some evaluation and maybe some changes made in communication of status. But I also think you won't go wrong deciding to use Scientific Linux now. They're basically interchangeable, after all, and it shouldn't be terribly painful to switch if you change your mind later.
If your system is on the front lines and is mission-critical for your business, buying a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription should also be on your list of options to consider. It's pricey, but not that pricey all considered, and by their nature CentOS and Scientific Linux always have some latency in getting security updates out the door.
add a comment |
Both projects, of course, are binary-compatible rebuilds from the source provided by Red Hat. The primary differences are in the development/build model.
CentOS only makes changes to remove Red Hat branding, or very occasionally as a last measure to get something to build. They aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Scientific Linux makes more customizations and additions, for example building OpenAFS packages. (They do keep the SRPMs for these separate, though.)
CentOS is a "community" distribution, but it's really built and maintained by a small (but active) group of volunteer developers in a closed manner. The lack of communication from this group is sometimes frustrating and I think a problem they need to solve. Scientific Linux is much more open in its development model, and it's a lot easier to see what's going on.
In my impression, Scientific Linux is a lot more likely to accept "get it working" hacks, and CentOS a bit more careful, even if it means delay — as in the case of the CentOS 6 release.
Both are in production use at a lot of serious institutions. I don't think the delay of the CentOS 6 release is a huge cause for concern — it's just the way things are. (I think prioritizing 5.6 was the right move, since that's blocking some security updates. The fact that that's not done yet is more worrying.) Hopefully after the actual work of getting the release out the door is done there can be some evaluation and maybe some changes made in communication of status. But I also think you won't go wrong deciding to use Scientific Linux now. They're basically interchangeable, after all, and it shouldn't be terribly painful to switch if you change your mind later.
If your system is on the front lines and is mission-critical for your business, buying a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription should also be on your list of options to consider. It's pricey, but not that pricey all considered, and by their nature CentOS and Scientific Linux always have some latency in getting security updates out the door.
Both projects, of course, are binary-compatible rebuilds from the source provided by Red Hat. The primary differences are in the development/build model.
CentOS only makes changes to remove Red Hat branding, or very occasionally as a last measure to get something to build. They aim to be bug-for-bug compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Scientific Linux makes more customizations and additions, for example building OpenAFS packages. (They do keep the SRPMs for these separate, though.)
CentOS is a "community" distribution, but it's really built and maintained by a small (but active) group of volunteer developers in a closed manner. The lack of communication from this group is sometimes frustrating and I think a problem they need to solve. Scientific Linux is much more open in its development model, and it's a lot easier to see what's going on.
In my impression, Scientific Linux is a lot more likely to accept "get it working" hacks, and CentOS a bit more careful, even if it means delay — as in the case of the CentOS 6 release.
Both are in production use at a lot of serious institutions. I don't think the delay of the CentOS 6 release is a huge cause for concern — it's just the way things are. (I think prioritizing 5.6 was the right move, since that's blocking some security updates. The fact that that's not done yet is more worrying.) Hopefully after the actual work of getting the release out the door is done there can be some evaluation and maybe some changes made in communication of status. But I also think you won't go wrong deciding to use Scientific Linux now. They're basically interchangeable, after all, and it shouldn't be terribly painful to switch if you change your mind later.
If your system is on the front lines and is mission-critical for your business, buying a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription should also be on your list of options to consider. It's pricey, but not that pricey all considered, and by their nature CentOS and Scientific Linux always have some latency in getting security updates out the door.
answered Mar 12 '11 at 18:26
mattdmmattdm
29.1k1372117
29.1k1372117
add a comment |
add a comment |
Oracle Linux has the same close update repositories as Red Hat.
I have two kind of servers, mission critical and not. I usually use the least critical servers to try out the new features to be ready when I need to create a new mission critical machine (usually with a RH license), this is the main reason for wich I usually try out the latest RH clone available.
They usually aren't on the frontline.
add a comment |
Oracle Linux has the same close update repositories as Red Hat.
I have two kind of servers, mission critical and not. I usually use the least critical servers to try out the new features to be ready when I need to create a new mission critical machine (usually with a RH license), this is the main reason for wich I usually try out the latest RH clone available.
They usually aren't on the frontline.
add a comment |
Oracle Linux has the same close update repositories as Red Hat.
I have two kind of servers, mission critical and not. I usually use the least critical servers to try out the new features to be ready when I need to create a new mission critical machine (usually with a RH license), this is the main reason for wich I usually try out the latest RH clone available.
They usually aren't on the frontline.
Oracle Linux has the same close update repositories as Red Hat.
I have two kind of servers, mission critical and not. I usually use the least critical servers to try out the new features to be ready when I need to create a new mission critical machine (usually with a RH license), this is the main reason for wich I usually try out the latest RH clone available.
They usually aren't on the frontline.
answered Mar 13 '11 at 8:11
TerenzioTerenzio
3113
3113
add a comment |
add a comment |
Use CentOS, because the development of Scientific Linux is discontinued (here the mailing list announcement).
New contributor
add a comment |
Use CentOS, because the development of Scientific Linux is discontinued (here the mailing list announcement).
New contributor
add a comment |
Use CentOS, because the development of Scientific Linux is discontinued (here the mailing list announcement).
New contributor
Use CentOS, because the development of Scientific Linux is discontinued (here the mailing list announcement).
New contributor
New contributor
answered 1 hour ago
Michael DornerMichael Dorner
1011
1011
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
It all depends if you need the newer functionality, if not I would stick with Centos.
Bear in mind the Red Hat Support lifecycle when making your decision.
You could also consider Oracle Linux
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
add a comment |
It all depends if you need the newer functionality, if not I would stick with Centos.
Bear in mind the Red Hat Support lifecycle when making your decision.
You could also consider Oracle Linux
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
add a comment |
It all depends if you need the newer functionality, if not I would stick with Centos.
Bear in mind the Red Hat Support lifecycle when making your decision.
You could also consider Oracle Linux
It all depends if you need the newer functionality, if not I would stick with Centos.
Bear in mind the Red Hat Support lifecycle when making your decision.
You could also consider Oracle Linux
answered Mar 12 '11 at 17:41
jamespojamespo
1,12176
1,12176
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
add a comment |
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
(In my "regular user" voice, not speaking specifically as a moderator.) Please add some "why" to your statements.
– mattdm
Mar 12 '11 at 18:30
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9149%2fcentos-or-scientific-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown