SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

November 2009

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

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:19:03 -0600
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
"Alec T. Habig" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Subject:
Re: Top 500 - why no SL?
From:
"Alec T. Habig" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-disposition:
inline
Comments:
To: [log in to unmask]
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines) 
Keith Lofstrom writes:
> 
> What is a surprise is the nonappearance of Scientific Linux on
> this list:
>    http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os

Looking at it, if I'm correct CentOS is the only "free" OS on there
(with 8 installs).  I'm guessing that if you've got the $$ to build a
top 500 computer, you're willing to pay for a service contract on  your
OS to better keep it running.

On the other hand, what the heck is "Linux".  Looks like they weren't
very consistent in their naming methodology.  There's also "Red Hat
Linux" by itself as well as broken into RHEL4 and RHEL5.

-- 
 	    Alec Habig, University of Minnesota Duluth Physics Dept.
	    		    [log in to unmask]
		       http://neutrino.d.umn.edu/~habig/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2