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:
Konstantin Olchanski <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Konstantin Olchanski <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:59:43 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines) 
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:02:47PM +0700, Janne Snabb wrote:
>
> http://bitrate.epipe.com/rhel-vs-centos-scientific-oracle-linux-6_187
> 

A few comments:

a) you forgot to include the SLC (CERN) distribution. This distribution
   is most important when dealing with hardware vendors - most vendors
   in our field sell stuff to CERN and when there are problems and they
   tell us "but we tested it with Ubuntu-2000" I happily reply, that
   SLC/RHEL/SL/CentOS is what they should be testing with and supporting.

b) delays in issuing bug fixes are good for you - no delay means they
   did not test the stuff before pushing it out.

-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

ATOM RSS1 RSS2