On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Lamar Owen <lo...@pari.edu> wrote: > As Les said, it depends by what you consider to be 'better.' I consider them > to be roughly equivalent, with SL having some advantages (mostly of > perception in my dayjob, for instance) and CentOS having some advantages > (long track record of stability and strict adherence to upstream in many > ways). I don't consider either to be 'better' in the strict sense of that > word; I would simply describe them as 'different' rather than try to qualify > a 'better.'
> Yet we use CentOS on virtually all of our servers, with very few exceptions. > Again, it's not a matter of which is 'better' in any way; when the whole RHEL > 3 thing came about, and Red Hat stopped selling boxed sets of Red Hat Linux > with RHL9, there were a number of rebuilds that came out. The first one out > of the gate (IIRC) was Whitebox, but not by much. So my first EL was a > Whitebox 3 install, which is now a CentOS 3 install, and is still running. > My second EL was a CentOS 2.1 install, which, again, is still running (libc5 > compatability stops here in the EL line; a large commercial libc5 binary-only > package is still running on that box). Yes correct, it is the user who sees which one is better or not? But it is true that both (SL and CentOS) are excellent. Both are Linux which is highly secured, especially for us who are new and switching to it from Windows, which I don't want to compare at all. What made me think for this comparison was the simple question why did Fermi Labs and CERN chose SL and developing but they didn't go for other distros, keeping in mind always that all the distros have their own pros and cons but essentially the same security. -- Regards, Parshwa Murdia Making the simple complicated is commonplace, making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's innovation.. -C Mingus _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
