ever migrate from Fedora to Scientific Linux or CentOS?

[John Summerfield]

Michael Semcheski wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Paul Johnson <pauljohn32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The unexpected bug introduced by frequent updates (much less
>> re-installs)  have lost some of their charm for us.
>> ...
>> In the past I've resisted adopting these longer lived distros because,
>> well, they get outdated and frustrating because they don't
>> interoperate with the rapidly changing part of the Linux world.
>> ...
>> So maybe I don't want Scientific Linux or CentOS.  Wish the
>> RedHat/Fedora Legacy group had not disbanded. For security updates on
>> a one year old distro, it was very handy.
> 
> I agree very much with your sentiment.  On our servers we run
> Scientific Linux.  The desktops run Fedora.
> 
> The servers are great, but admittedly we use a much smaller set of
> software.  With the desktops, its either do updates frequently or do
> them 500 at a time.  I'd be a lot happier if the kernel was updated
> less frequently (like with the server.)
> 
> Right now, I think the happy medium might be with the latest SL, and a
> few applications like Firefox and Thunderbird compiled by hand in
> /usr/local/...
> 


Currently I care for SL5 (my current desktop at home), CentOS 4 (desktop 
at work, and a server at home) and WBEL 4. Oh, and a RHL 7.3->CentOS3 
for theboss at home. I should also mention some FC and an OpenSUSE10.2 laptop.

I would have no concerns about SL5 or CentOS5. Choose based on package 
selection; SL5 may have the edge for you. Both are built from RHEL5 
source with minimal changes, but SL5 has extras for the scientific 
community.

There is no reason at all why you can't install SL, and use packages 
from the CentOS repos, RHEL users do it fairly regularly.

I think SL supports Atheros wireless out of the box, and includes real 
Java and some other stuff important to scientists.


The main difference I see between SL and CentOS is the size of the 
communities and work force; Essentially, SL is done by (I think) two 
people (but I think they're paid to do it) whilst CentOS, like Fedora, 
is chiefly done by volunteers.

Both are supported by mailing lists, and I reckon if one's using 
RHEL-Clone then hanging out on the relevant RHEL list is also appropriate.

There used to be Tao linux, and google may still know of it. It merged 
with CentOS a while back.

WBEL is basically "what we use here, built from RHEL source. You may use 
it, but don't come here for help." It was an okay choice when I 
downloaded it, but I see no reason to prefer it now.

You could also look at SUSE, and maybe evaluate it. it's rpm-based, and 
yast really is very nice. There's no SUSE-clone that I've noticed, but 
OTOH the licence fees may be fairly modest for academe.

Academe should also check out RHEL prices; I haven't for some time, but 
I think one can run RHEL for a modest cost (and get extremely modest 
support).



As for upgrading, I think that all that's needed to upgrade from FC to 
Tikanga-clone is to boot the media and go for it. That might be some 
required magic (upgradeany os some such), and one should check ("rpm -qa 
--last | less") for packages that didn't get upgraded and explore why 
not. likely some will be orphaned, but those could be a problem however 
you do it.

FC3->Tikanga-clone should be about the same upgrade as the (supported) 
Nahant->Tikanga, and FC6->Tikanga like Tikanga->Tikanga, and I think 
that's supported too.



-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Please do not reply off-list