On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:37:14 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > i am a newbie to Scientific Linux. for my project work i need to
> > have RHEL. so i searched Google for Open alternatives and found 2
> > of my choice:  CentOS and Scientific Linux. i liked Scientific
> > Linux, may be because of my childhood love of Nuclear Physics and
> > Astronomy :-)
>
> It depends. Are you trolling both the CentOS and Scientific Linux
> mailling lists or are you looking for definitive answers.

Hi Stephen,

Why so many people are so touchy 'bout trolling? I recon every answer
to troll questions makes the majority of "lurking" readers more
knowledgeable. Isn't the effort worth of it? :)

> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux have been built as stringently as
> possible to the RHEL binaries. The RHEL binaries are built for
> stability of a 7 year lifecycle.
(...)

But what about repos? Which one can I mix up with what? My first
attempts to use SL went into failure as I "touched" the yumex crap (and
ended furious for its slowness) and got too many red messages about
dependencies in return. Perhaps I wanted to delete/install too many
apps at a time (what is the best option then?). But taking into
consideration the notorious yumex sluggishness I wasn't able to do
anything useful.

Why are ATrpms (and others) listed first than CentOS repos? CentOS
repos are supposedly more similar to SL binaries after all. I must
say frankly that I got nearly all repo addresses I could use for SL
now, a few tips how to use them, and no knowledge which use first and
why.

Regards,
pp

--
Przemysław Pawełczyk (p2o2) - [log in to unmask]
P2O2 - http://pp.kv.net.pl, P2O2 Forum - http://www.p2o2.fora.pl/