Scientific Linux

[Ben Browning]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote:
>> If the patch cycle is as
>> quick as Cent/RHEL, it may be prod-ready.
>
> net patch cycles have historically track out substantially identically;
> CentOS just completed a re-engineering cycle with the 6 major release which,
> with any luck, will shorten the release turn

Awesome :) I know getting 6 sucked for you guys.

>> But saying "It's
>> indistinguishable from CentOS" just makes me think "Why not just use
>> CentOS then?" If it lacks any compelling, distinguishing feature , I
>> don't know why I wouldn't use the ubiquitous, widely supported option.
>
> Under that argument, simply pay for RHEL [1].  Diversity is good

Diversity is good, so use this thing with some indistinguishable
difference? Diversity is only good when it provides something unique
or different- it's not good for its own sake.

I use RHEL when the business needs a Throat To Choke, CentOS when RHEL
and CentOS are the supported options, Ubuntu or Debian when I can
otherwise. I agree that diversity is good, SL just doesn't seem very
diverse from Cent.

~Ben