Troy Dawson wrote:
> 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
> 

Troy,

That was a terrific explanation. As a home user, with no scientific 
purpose for my Linux use, I still find Scientific Linux to be the best, 
most user-friendly, rock-solid distribution I've ever used. There are 
non bells-and-whistle that I like (i.e., MPlayer, Xine, RealPlayer, OOo2 
beta, drivel, Nvu, xmms, and many more) that I haven't been able to add, 
if I want them, though I'm sure that's not the primary purpose of the 
distribution.

It just "feels" solid, responds fast, and the downloads from your 
servers, for new ISOs or for errata and additions, are the fastest I've 
experienced (probably because of those cool Fermilab servers?).

The help that's available, although it may not be technically called 
"support," in the truest sense, is fantastic. Scientific minds 
throughout the system jump on questions or problems and give answers -- 
quickly, politely, to the point, and without the impatience of some 
other distributions.

I have another partition upon which I experiment with other Linux 
distributions. But I ALWAYS keep Scientific Linux install and it's never 
failed me yet.

Thank you for the tremendous contributions Scientific Linux is making, 
both to the scientific, and to the open-source communities.

William Roddy