Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> I will be setting up a server for Cadence chip design software, and
> that company specifies Enterprise Linux 5 from "The Upstream Vendor"
> for the OS, accept no substitutes.

This is the case with a lot of commercial software.

>  The cost of [T.U.V.] EL5, with 
> support, is miniscule compared to the CAD tool licenses, so I have
> no problem with running that.
> 
> The other half dozen existing machines are SL5 (and one CentOS5),
> and will not be running Cadence, so they will stay with SL5.  I
> am assuming that these machines will coexist peacefully;

So would I.

>  I will
> keep them separate, and not ask TUV tech support any SL5 questions. 
> 
> With my SLx experience, I probably won't need any tech support
> at all.  I assume Cadence specifies an EL5 support contract so
> that Cadence isn't saddled with OS vendor questions from newbies.

If you ever did user support you know these cases where the user 
'changed nothing, I promise you' except perhaps that print statement...

They just want to make sure the base OS _is_ identical, and that there 
are no changes that should not make a difference, except if ...

> 
> So, the question is, does anyone know of any technical or legal
> or business reasons why mixing SL5 and "TUVEL5" is difficult?

No.

> Or is this going to be very easy, like I expect?

I would be surprised if not. You will have the extra work to set up the 
infrastructure for the TUV machine(s), but the boxen themselves will be 
nice to each other.

Matthias

> 
> Keith
>