SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

August 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: SL 6 vs. other RHEL clones: security advisory comparison
From:
Mike Zanker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mike Zanker <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:48:55 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (11 lines) 
On 20/08/2012 18:42, Ian Murray wrote:

> I am not a member of the scientific community, so I am free to choose the distribution that suits based on its merits. I do not use a clone as a bastion host for security reasons. Otherwise I choose SL based on my perception of the robustness distribution's support infrastructure. So far, I have been very impressed even if they are not "first out the door".

We use RHEL at work. At home I have 2 linux boxes and also have a VPS. I 
run CentOS on one, SL on another and OEL on the third. It varies as to 
whom gets errata out first but they are usually all released within 
24-48 hours.

Mike

ATOM RSS1 RSS2