4 ms·

Unfortunately, I don't think SL holds up in a in all cases. CentOS (and Oracle) strive for binary compatibility. I've had cases where I needed to run vendor sup

Unfortunately, I don't think SL holds up in a in all cases. CentOS (and Oracle) strive for binary compatibility. I've had cases where I needed to run vendor supplied binaries which were sometimes buggy on a non-centos EL system. Yeah, it sucks that the vendor only supplies binaries, and only tests against specific RHEL release points, but that's life sometimes. Don't get me wrong, Scientific Linux is great, but it's not for everyone.

SwellJoe 14y ago
Yes, the priorities of SL are different from CentOS, and binary compatibility isn't quite as high on the list, from what I can tell. But, so many people are only using Open Source software, and just want a really popular, really stable, really long lifecycle Linux distro for their servers. That's the boat I'm in. I don't currently run anything that I can't get in source form on our servers, so I don't have any concerns about binary compatibility. That said, both of our products that specifically support SL and have binary packages in their repos (Virtualmin and Cloudmin) use the same yum repository of binaries across RHEL, CentOS, and Scientific Linux. We've never had any bug reports caused by that sharing of binaries. So, binary compatibility is pretty good in our admittedly limited experience (we only provide a handful of binaries).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]