Fabian Braennstroem wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just saw scientificlinux on the net and wonder where the
> advantages compared to other distributions (e.g. centOS)
> are. I suppose that I can use the same packages!?
> Is it more suitable for scientific work like the name
> implies?
> 

This is a question I think we'll need to put up on the FAQ page.  It's a 
good one, that get's asked enough.  But for now, here is at least what I 
feel the answer is.

First off, we believe that CentOS and Scientific Linux are both 
compatible, for the most part.  We don't guarantee that, but since both 
distributions strive to be RHEL compatible, and we believe both have 
achieved that goal, we feel that they are compatible.
Second off, we do not feel they are 'competitors'.  (I know that wasn't 
in your question, but others ask it)  Many of the main developers are on 
the same mailing lists, and we try to help each other out whenever 
feasible.  There is cooperation between our two distributions.

So, to the main question, what is different.

One of S.L. goals is for a person to install the release they want 
(let's say S.L. 3.0.2) and be able to sit at that release and know that 
nothing is going to change except security errata.  That is why you will 
see that we still have 3.0.1, 3.0.2, etc...  This is because several of 
the experiments or labs have tested 'this particular release' whatever 
that release is, and they don't want anything changing on it.
CentOS is different in that their releases get upgraded to the 'head' 
release after it is released.  So if you installed what we consider 
3.0.4, and then when 3.0.5 came out, you would automatically be upgraded.
We aren't saying one is better than the other, just that that is a 
difference.  We are putting things in place so that if a person wants to 
have S.L. automatically update to the latest they can, but that won't be 
the default.

Another difference is the concept of 'sites' in Scientific Linux.  This 
is something that is different ... from any other linux release that I 
know.  It is a way for a 'site' (like a lab or a University) to put in 
various changes, like scripts, rpm's, installer changes, and customize 
their site, yet still retain S.L. compatiblilty and continue to get the 
security updates.  This is how we create Scientific Linux Fermi, and I 
believe there are a few others that use this functionality.

Our sponsors are different.
Scientific Linux is mainly sponsored by scientific lab's and 
Universities around the world.  Mostly by Fermilab and CERN.  There are 
other's that contribute and help, most definatly.  But those are our 
main sponsors.
CentOS is a purely community based OS.  All of their sponsors, their 
servers, bandwidth, and contibutions have come completely from the 
community.
This difference tends to give each of us a different point of view when 
looking at various ways of developing our releases.

Is Scientific Linux better for scientific applications?
Basically it is called Scientific Linux because it is made by scientific 
labs, for scientific labs and universities.  It is not named Scientific 
Linux because it has the largest collection of scientific programs.  It 
was named back when it was small, and only the scientific labs were 
using it.


> And a small OT question. If there are certain packages
> missing, is it possible to build them using an existing
> rpmsrc-Package from fedora and install it? I am actually
> using archlinux right now and like the ability to build own
> packages.
>

Certainly, although I would suggest looking to see if someone else has 
already compiled them.  Check out our repository site

https://www.scientificlinux.org/community/repo/

> Best Greetings!
> Fabian
> 

Troy Dawson