Back in the early 6.x days I did a default install (accepting all default
options from the ISO's anaconda) and did some non-scientific comparisons.
 I need to do this again...

http://lostinopensource.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-clone-wars-centos-vs-scientific-linux/

Some of it was pretty interesting.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Paul Robert Marino <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Well correction that was one of the original goals of LTS (Long term
> support Linux) which was the name of one of the two efforts which were
> combine to create SL. Since then TUV a.k.a Red Hat has changed their
> lifecycle policy and made it much longer that it had been prior to RHEL 4
> I'm sure though if Red Hat decided to go back to a two or three year life
> cycle then SL's policy would change back to providing security patches over
> a longer period of time.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Sent from my HP Pre3
>
> ------------------------------
> On Jan 9, 2014 18:39, Ian Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 09/01/14 23:13, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
>
> SL is an exact match to RHEL with only a few variations such as the
> removed the client for Red Hats support site integration and added a few
> things like AFS because their labs need it. The differences are well
> documented in the release notes and its a short list.
> In addition SL guarantees long term patch availability even if Red Hat is
> no longer supporting that release.
>
> This wasn't my understanding. According to this page
> https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions ...
> " * We plan on following the TUV Life Cycle. Provided TUV continues to
> make the source rpms publicly available."
> ... which disagrees with your statement. At least the way I read it.
>
>
>
> CentOS tends to do thing like update the PHP libraries to make it easier
> for web developers. And as a result they take longer for many security
> patches because they occasionally hit dependency issues due to the packages
> they have updated.
>
>  I am pretty sure the base release does not do this kind of thing by
> default. It would be a major deviation from being "binary compatible" with
> upstream vendor, which is how I recall their stated goal to be. It may be
> optional, however.
>
>
>
>
>  -- Sent from my HP Pre3
>
>  ------------------------------
> On Jan 9, 2014 13:17, Orion Poplawski <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> On 01/09/2014 05:54 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:.
> > What technical differences would be between CentOS + scientific repo and
> SL?
> >
> > Just a personal thought, but maybe this would free some human resources
> > for maintaining a lot of scientific (and IT/grid related) packages in
> > well established repos (like epel, fedora/rpmfusion)
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Adrian
> >
>
> Well, for me the main difference between CentOS and SL is that with SL you
> can
> stay on EL point releases. That would require a major change in the CentOS
> infrastructure to support it. Worth exploring though...
>
>
> --
> Orion Poplawski
> Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
> NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
> 3380 Mitchell Lane [log in to unmask]
> Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
>
>
>


-- 
Thanks,

Jamie Duncan
@jamieeduncan