SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 2011

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: Some questions about the SL repositories
From:
Akemi Yagi <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Akemi Yagi <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 May 2011 08:18:31 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines) 
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This is where SL differs from both RHEL and CentOS.
>
> We do not force you to update to the latest release.
>
> If a person installs SL 6.0, they will stay at SL 6.0, only getting the
> security errata, until they wish to update.
> And then they don't have to update to the latest either.  They can update to
> 6.2 even though we are at 6.5.
>
> This was done for the scientists, but I've seen plenty of non-scientists
> like this feature (and many that don't).  This allows people to sit on a
> release an not worry about some feature breaking their program.
>
> In fact, RedHat even started allowing people to do this, for an extra fee.

Yes, Extended Update Support (EUS), that is. I should say SL is even
better. RH does not support 5.5, and the support for 5.4 ends 6 months
after the 5.6 release.

Akemi

ATOM RSS1 RSS2