On 03/23/2011 06:24 AM, carlopmart wrote: > On 03/23/2011 12:11 PM, Kenni Lund wrote: >> 2011/3/23 carlopmart<carlopmart at gmail.com>: >>> On 03/23/2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says >>>>> "compatible" too, like CentOS ... >>>> >>>> Honestly... This is a development list. If you need to have the >>>> concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you >>>> are in the wrong place. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Honestly ... I know the meaning of the concept of "binary compatible". I >>> don't understand is where you see the difference between CentOS and SL >>> about this. Where is the difference? >> >> carlopmart, please go to the -users list with this, one of the CentOS >> devs actually posted a relevant example of the SL/CentOS differences >> earlier today: >> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/108389.html >> >> Best regards >> Kenni > > I don't doubt about Johnny Hughes says in his email, but there is an > important point is not to taken into account: SL5.6 is not released and > Johnny makes his comparision between SL and CentOS 5.6. > > ok, then the principal two reasons to don't fusion CentOS and SL are: > > a) SL is not "binary compatible" > > b) SL binaries are linked in different manner than TUV does. > > ?? am I right?? > > I never said that SL does anything wrong. And yes, they have not "released" 5.6 yet, so it might be fixed then. If people want CentOS, they should use CentOS. If they want Scientific Linux, they should use Scientific Linux. I was only pointing out that one can find fault with any distribution. I do not know what exact process is for SL ... I do know what it is for CentOS. For the record, neither CentOS nor SL is 100% compatible with the upstream product. Ned Slider pointed out that some of our Kernel modules are build against some different than upstream because they built on a version of the kernel that they did not release. We do not have access to that kernel source code, so we built against a released kernel. The real issue is that the upstream product is not necessarily self hosting and they sometimes build against stuff that is not released. That is just how it is. Then again, they never said their goal was to produce a self hosting distribution. They also do not need to provide every iteration of their software that resides on the build system, and they do provide more information than any other enterprise vendor. There is no reason to slam SL to build up CentOS (or vice versa) ... both CentOS and SL are quality free enterprise distributions. Each can be used for enterprise level server or workstation uses. I can say that if I was not using CentOS then I would be using SL. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110410/2e10c538/attachment-0007.sig>