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