Cent OS migration

Blake Hudson blake at ispn.net
Tue May 10 14:45:06 UTC 2011

William Pitcock wrote:
> Anyway, I was just wondering what the general consensus of NANOG is
> regarding CentOS vs Scientific Linux.  SL generally has faster security
> updates and people are *paid* to work on it fulltime.  CentOS on the
> other hand is supported out-of-the-box by most software.
> William

The two teams have different goals. Scientific Linux is designed to
create a common install base for labs. Which helps ensure repeatable
results and reduces the need for schools to develop and maintain their
own independent OS/software projects. SL uses RHEL as a base, but has a
different build environment, and may build against different versions of
libraries, as well as include packages which add or change functionality.

The goal of CentOS is to create a 100% compatible version of RHEL. Cent
tries to replicate the build environment of RHEL as closely as possible.
This ensures 100% compatible programs - bugs, regressions, and all.

For most, I suspect this difference in philosophy results in negligible
difference. However, some may need this. Especially if they test with
CentOS, and use RHEL in production, relying on the two to function and
perform identically.

I support CentOS, and hope the project resolves some of these problems
that have been lingering for the last year. As long as there are
individuals who support the project, there will still be a CentOS.


More information about the NANOG mailing list