On 11/26/2011 04:50 AM, g wrote: > On 11/26/2011 04:13 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > <> > >> What part isn't true? Nowhere in what I've written did I compare SL >> with Fedora. --- i did not say that you did. >> Nowhere did I make any claims of stable v.s. unstable. --- i never said that you did. >> So, I'm puzzled as to why you would do so. --- it was only a comment about sl. > whoa mule. 8-D > > i made no such statement. > > i wrote; > > }> i presume that you have not installed and used Scientific Linux for > }> any length of time. tho i may be wrong. > > have you install SL? > > i have and there where no default *scientific* programs installed. > > unless you consider "Dia", a graphics diagram editor as 'scientific'. > > in kde's menu selection, there is a heading of 'Science & Math', which > is empty. > > menu does have 'KCalc', scientific calculator, under 'Utilities/Desktop'. > > granted, i may have moved them to where they are not, too long to recall > for sure, but is do not consider them "scientific". > > i also have a menu headings of "Electronics/Analog/Mixed Signal Design" > with "XCircuit Schematic" which runs 'xcircuit', but iirc, i installed it. > > i guess i could pull out my backed yum logs and check for sure, but that > is a little more trouble than worth. > >> SL is RHEL recompiled from source with the RH copyrighted materials >> removed.... > > most all of them. > >> just like CentOS. Right? > > this i can only presume because centos site claims to do so. > > i did install centos a few years ago and did not like it from start, so > i removed it. ++++ On 11/26/2011 12:32 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 11/26/2011 12:04 AM, Linux Tyro wrote: >>> Years ago I ran an LUG internal to a company and it helped the new hires >>> learn the ins and outs. >> You do still ran that? How often you come to India or you have ever been to? > > I don't do that any longer. I used to go to Mumbai, Bangalore, and > Chennai. >>> Of course you can install openSuse. I'm just surprised that, being a >>> beginner, you'd install that distro when their community seemed a bit >>> hostile when it came to, what they felt, were basic questions that could >>> be easily answered by doing a bit of research. >> Yeah, I could have Googled but that showed me terrific results and for >> a newbie, it was painful so I got afraid in the beginning. > > Since you like to quote what others have said: "No pain, no gain". > Besides, IMO, one learns more by trial and error than having someone > tell you what to do. That is another reason I like the VM method. You > can take a snapshot of your system and if you completely mess it up all > you have to do is restore it from the snapshot. > >>> I still like using VM's for my "alternate" distros as it is easy to take >>> snap shots as you muck around and you can have multiple distros up and >>> running at the same time so you can compare things. Also, when and if >>> you get tired of a particular distro you just delete the VM's. Makes >>> redistribution of empty space a whole lot easier. >> Okay VM, hmmm, but I guess we lose some functionality in VM, however, >> this is just a newbie guess.....Rather, if Live CD is there, why not >> to play around a few and then see...? > > Really, the only major functionality that you'll lose is the direct > interaction between the O/S and the display hardware. That is only a > minor inconvenience since you can install all the major GUI's on your > primary O/S and experiment with them there. > > In another area you talked about Scientific Linux, and Fedora and openSUSE. > > Scientific Linux is simply a variant Red Hat Enterprise Linux just as > CentOS is. It just packages, and installs by default, applications for > the "scientific" community. --- last paragraph is what i was actually referencing to: }> installs by default, which sl does not install by default. only adds packages. which in a later post you correct yourself. }> applications for the "scientific" community. is an application not a program, regardless of what it does? tho, so i would have stayed to your liking and used term 'application'. > If you need those apps, you can simply add > those in to your chosen O/S. --- only if chosen o/s has needed support files. > In other words, Scientific Linux is really > nothing out of the ordinary or magical. --- i did not note anyone saying that it was. tho it is an easy way of obtaining an o/s that is stable and a long life. > There are 2 primary differences between Fedora and openSUSE. Fedora's > default GUI is GNOME, while it is KDE in openSUSE. The more important > difference are the tools used in each for administration. > > Also, a pointer.... > > In a mailing list, it best if you separately answer emails and not > combine them into one as you did. You included a response to Ian Malone > in this. It breaks the threading for his response. ++++ On 11/26/2011 03:43 AM, g wrote: > On 11/26/2011 12:32 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > <> > >> Scientific Linux is simply a variant Red Hat Enterprise Linux just as >> CentOS is. It just packages, and installs by default, applications for >> the "scientific" community. > > from this statement, i presume that you have not installed and used > Scientific Linux for any length of time. tho i may be wrong. > > i can say from my own experience of installing and using "SL", your > statement is not entirely true. > > on this system/box, i have SL and Fedora installed because i want a > stable 'long life' os and a 'play with' os. > > SL is very stable and is maintained by a group of 'tech heads' that > know what they are doing. if they did not, they would not be working > in the environment of Fermilab Accelerator Research Center, aka, > Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. > > if it is safe for such an environment, it is safe for my use. > > besides, it is RHEL. "if it's Red Hat, it has to be good". 8-D ++++ On 11/26/2011 04:13 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 11/26/2011 11:43 AM, g wrote: >> On 11/26/2011 12:32 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: >> <> >> >>> Scientific Linux is simply a variant Red Hat Enterprise Linux just as >>> CentOS is. It just packages, and installs by default, applications for >>> the "scientific" community. >> from this statement, i presume that you have not installed and used >> Scientific Linux for any length of time. tho i may be wrong. >> >> i can say from my own experience of installing and using "SL", your >> statement is not entirely true. >> >> on this system/box, i have SL and Fedora installed because i want a >> stable 'long life' os and a 'play with' os. >> >> SL is very stable and is maintained by a group of 'tech heads' that >> know what they are doing. if they did not, they would not be working >> in the environment of Fermilab Accelerator Research Center, aka, >> Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. >> >> if it is safe for such an environment, it is safe for my use. >> >> besides, it is RHEL. "if it's Red Hat, it has to be good". 8-D >> > > What part isn't true? Nowhere in what I've written did I compare SL > with Fedora. --- i never said that you did. > Nowhere did I make any claims of stable v.s. unstable. > So, I'm puzzled as to why you would do so. --- as stated above, i was only commenting. > SL is RHEL recompiled from source with the RH copyrighted materials > removed....just like CentOS. Right? --- answered in my reply below. ++++ On 11/26/2011 04:50 AM, g wrote: > On 11/26/2011 04:13 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > <> > >> What part isn't true? Nowhere in what I've written did I compare SL >> with Fedora. Nowhere did I make any claims of stable v.s. unstable. >> So, I'm puzzled as to why you would do so. > > whoa mule. 8-D > > i made no such statement. > > i wrote; > > }> i presume that you have not installed and used Scientific Linux for > }> any length of time. tho i may be wrong. > > have you install SL? > > i have and there where no default *scientific* programs installed. > > unless you consider "Dia", a graphics diagram editor as 'scientific'. > > in kde's menu selection, there is a heading of 'Science & Math', which > is empty. > > menu does have 'KCalc', scientific calculator, under 'Utilities/Desktop'. > > granted, i may have moved them to where they are not, too long to recall > for sure, but is do not consider them "scientific". > > i also have a menu headings of "Electronics/Analog/Mixed Signal Design" > with "XCircuit Schematic" which runs 'xcircuit', but iirc, i installed it. > > i guess i could pull out my backed yum logs and check for sure, but that > is a little more trouble than worth. > >> SL is RHEL recompiled from source with the RH copyrighted materials >> removed.... > > most all of them. > >> just like CentOS. Right? > > this i can only presume because centos site claims to do so. > > i did install centos a few years ago and did not like it from start, so > i removed it. ++++ On 11/26/2011 05:26 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 11/26/2011 12:50 PM, g wrote: >> On 11/26/2011 04:13 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: >> <> >> >>> What part isn't true? Nowhere in what I've written did I compare SL >>> with Fedora. Nowhere did I make any claims of stable v.s. unstable. >>> So, I'm puzzled as to why you would do so. --- as stated above. >> whoa mule. 8-D > > I have no idea what you are getting at.... --- you where running off in wrong direction like a frightened mule. > You did write in your previous email (and removed it from here).... --- why continue with 'dead wood'? because you seem to not be able to recall, or able to look back at previous post, i hope this lengthy reply simplifies thing for you. please trim out any and all that you feel unneeded so that you can maintain with ravel. > "SL is very stable...." So, you are bringing in the concept of > "stability" while saying what I've said is some how untrue. I don't get it. --- from that statement, i can well believe you do not get it. >> have you install SL? > > Yes... > >> i have and there where no default *scientific* programs installed. > > I didn't say "scientific program". I said: applications for the > "scientific" community. --- semantics. > http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/features/added gives a > list of what is added. > > The one "error" I made was thinking these were installed by "default" > when they are only included. --- this is true. > Somehow I think you have it in your mind that I am recommending staying > away from SL. --- this is not true. > I feel you are attempting to generate controversy or > something for some reason that I can't figure out. --- that is your prerogative. tho not true either. > IMO, many people see the words "Fermi Labs" and "CERN" and somehow > impart a mystical power to this spin/distro. --- that is your opinion. to me, it shows 2 groups that have to have a dependable os and they chose rhel for that os. to me, there is nothing mystical about it. btw, "Fermi Labs" and "CERN" use their own rebuild and are not totally the same. not saying that you said they are, but using singular of 'spin' and 'distro' may cause someone to think the 2 are using same packaging. basically, they are same, tho each has their own additional packages to me their own needs. > Even if you read the SL website they say.... (With * highlights) > > -------- > Its primary purpose is to reduce duplicated effort of the labs, and to > have a common install base for the various experimenters. > > The base SL distribution is *basically* Enterprise Linux, recompiled > from source. > > Our main goal for the base distribution is to have *everything > compatible with Enterprise*, with only a few *minor additions or > changes*. Examples of items that were added are Alpine, and OpenAFS. > > Because the main goal of Scientific Linux is to have everything > compatible with Enterprise, we have kept our modifications to a minimum. > But we have made changes. *The majority of the changes are not seen, or > merely cosmetic.* > -------- > > SL is a fine distribution. I've never said otherwise. --- i never said you did. > I don't see any point in continuing. I feel you are being argumentative > for the sake of arguing. --- that is your opinion. incorrect. but it is your opinion. -- peace out. tc.hago, g . *please reply "plain text" only. "html text" are deleted* **** in a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today. ** to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it. to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look* at it. ** The installation instructions stated to install Windows 2000 or better. So I installed Linux. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ ****
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
