On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 21:11 -0700, Yasha Karant wrote:
> This is perhaps a silly question, but I would appreciate a URL or some 
> other explanation.
> 
> A faculty colleague and I were discussing the differences between a 
> supported enterprise Linux and any of a number of "beta" or "enthusiast" 
> linuxes (including TUV Fedora).  A question arose for which I have no 
> answer:  why did SL -- that has professional paid personnel at Fermilab 
> and CERN -- select to use the present TUV instead of SuSE enterprise 
> that is RPM (but yast, not yum) based, and has to release full source 
> (not binaries/directly useable) for the OS environment under the same 
> conditions as TUV of SL?  SuSE is just as stable, but typically 
> incorporates more current versions of applications and libraries than 
> does the TUV chosen.  Any insight would be appreciated.  If SuSE had 
> been chosen (SuSE originally was from the EU and thus a more natural 
> choice for CERN), what would we be losing over SL?
> To the best of my knowledge, there is no SuSE Enterprise clone 
> equivalent to the SL or CentOS clones of TUV EL.
> 
> Yasha Karant

You're right, it is a silly question. Or is Google broken again?

"Q. Why did you pick to build Scientific Linux off of the commercial
enterprise linux distribution you did? Why didn't you pick distribution
X?"

https://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/faq/general1

Might I suggest linuxquestions.org the next time you have a brain fart.

Steve