Fedora vs RHEL

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 09:04 -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:

> Excellent summation Tim!  As I said my problem was not what I wanted but 
> what I could "Sell" to the Boss.
> 
> One outstanding suggestion that came up in this discussion was 
> Scientific Linux  as the "Supported by CERN" could be a powerful selling 
> point.  That post had me doing the classic head thump D'Oh! I had 
> forgotten about that release!
> 
> Female involved in the decision chain has great respect and admiration 
> for the work of CERN and their web page shows no hint of their relation 
> to CentOS!  That is a stable platform that I am certain I can get 
> accepted.  Boss taking a long weekend so I have plenty of time to work 
> up the presentation.
----
Connie is well respected by the Linux community but the fact that she is
female means absolutely nothing and I cringed at the reference as it
completely doesn't matter.

There are some distinctive differences between the philosophies of
CentOS and Scientific Linux and you probably should take some time to
educate yourself on them as they do matter. 

CentOS tries to build all packages as closely as possible to RHEL -
essentially striving for total binary compatibility which means not
fixing bugs that are known to exist in RHEL but they do report the bugs
to Red Hat.

Scientific does not try to achieve binary compatibility and in fact
makes conscious choices of changes - sometimes different compiling
options for packages - fixing known bugs with their own developed code,
etc.

Scientific Linux has shorter support windows than RHEL or CentOS which
may be significant too.

Scientific Linux has paid staff to build packages whereas CentOS is
strictly unpaid/volunteer packagers.

They all exist to scratch a different itch. There are differences.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.