On 03/23/2011 12:00 PM, carlopmart wrote:
On 03/23/2011 10:52 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46:21AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why not?
Because unless something has changed SL does not profess to be binary compatible with upstream
Are you sure?? What does it means "binary compatible" for you??
binary compatible means that ALL dependencies are identical. each and every one.
To me it means that the software "foo" works perfectly on both distros.
if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
And all the software I've tried, commercial and GNU, it works in both distributions with the same mistakes and equally effective and performance.
You'll be surprised how subtle differences can influence programs behaviour. My colleagues investigated for half a week a <2 second difference for the execution time of a commercial application ( we are beta testing ) when using a specific test scenario.