On Thursday 27 October 2005 17:58, Jeff Squyres wrote: > I'm still somewhat dubious, though. If they really are, literally, > just rebuilds of RHEL, what is the difference between Centos, Whitebox, > Tao, and Scientific Linux? I.e., what is the point of having 4 > different clones -- are they really different? If so, how much, and > what, exactly, is different? Will it hose us? Does it violate our > definition of "clone"? > > Specifically -- if there are 4 different clones, then it implies that > there are some non-trivial differences between them. Is this true? > (honest question -- I know nothing about any of these 4 clones)
These projects were all started at about the same time, when it turned out that RH wouldn't have a street distro any more and the enterprise distros were good enough but too expensive. They are supported and aimed at different communities (eg. Scientific Linux for High Energy Physics academic users from Fermilab, CERN, DESY,...), the level of commitment and support is different, the number of supported architectures is different, and the logos are different. Some are better tested than others, and some have more add-on packages than others. But the core is the same and consists of recompiled redhat srpms, some of which have redhat logos and references replaced. Regards, Erich ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
