On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
