Fedora vs RHEL

[John Pilkington]

On 20/04/13 19:49, Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 23:15 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:16 PM, g  wrote:
>>
>>          On 04/18/2013 07:26 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>                  Hi
>>          <>
>>
>>                  Since both CentOS and SL are rebuilds of RHEL. the 3rd
>>                  party repos should
>>                  be compatible with either
>>
>>
>>          centos does a lot of chop and remove from rhel package and
>>          adds a lot of
>>          their own crud.
>>
>>
>> No.  They don't.
> ----
> as I said - he is highly uninformed. Rather unsurprisingly, he got it
> completely backwards though I wouldn't suggest that Scientific Linux
> adds chop and crud.
>
> CentOS is essentially the cleanest, closest rebuild of RHEL that is
> possible - as they say, bug for bug. They do have a CentOS Plus
> repository which does have different build options but it is disabled by
> default so you have to want the changes to get them.
>
> Scientific Linux takes all sorts of liberties with build options and
> even their build system doesn't attempt to produce compatible binary
> packages - not that I am suggesting that it's a bad thing - just a
> completely different philosophy than CentOS.
>>
> Craig
>

I was interested to hear that; the emphasis of the two distros hasn't 
been clear to me, but I would guess that SL is primarily aimed at an 
environment where results matter and well-qualified support staff are 
available.  That would make it good for purpose, but not necessarily for 
grannies - which is, ISTR, where this all started.

John  P