On 6/11/07, Przemysław Pawełczyk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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? :)

>



I am only touchy about it when the same post is made to 2 similar

lists with only slight additions/changes made to make the article more

interesting to the suspected audience. Also when 'strong' opinions are

added about something sucking it is a standard meme for 'getting an

argument going' versus looking for particular discussion





> > 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.

>



Dealing with repositories is always a tricky matter.. I normally make

sure my system is working to how I want it without repositories.. and

then try to figure out which repo's have the data I want in them, and

what audience/customer each one serves. After that, I enable/add the

ones I figure meet those needs.. but sometimes have to 'back' off for

some reason.



> 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.

>



The CentOS repos would not be listed as they mostly contain the same

data as what SciLin already contains.. and would not be useful

additions. The CentOS-plus might be useful, but mixing and matching

OS's is not for the faint of heart  [did SciLin add a kernel patch for

their OS for CERN clusters...? did CentOS try to add it as a seperate

module? etc]



-- 

Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed

in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"