Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
As far as I know, the kerberos changes are pushed back up the chain to Red Hat to include in general distribution. At least that's what I've been told by ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,663

    As far as I know, the kerberos changes are pushed back up the chain to Red Hat to include in general distribution. At least that's what I've been told by the SL team at Fermi Lab. Ditto Andrew File System (afs) changes. So, there shouldn't be any deltas between what you get with RHEL, CentOS, or SL for those packages. The main element is to keep RHEL and SL in sync, not to have a forked OS, but a real clone. As for 5.6, I don't know but suspect that it is a manpower issue more than anything else. They are currently working on getting Fermi Linux 6 ready to go for the lab and CERN, et al. FWIW, Fermi Linux is more of a fork than a clone of RHEL. Actually, it is a fork of SL. As for security patches for SL, since they track precisely the changes in the RHEL code base, when fixes are made there, you will also get them pretty much immediately in SL. So, SL 5.5 should have all the latest in security patches and packages in 5.6, even though they haven't released a 5.6 installation disc set.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  2. #12
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,663
    Also, trust me when I tell you that the development team at Fermi Lab is VERY security conscious. They are not going to delay security patches as that would jeopardize not only Fermi Lab's systems, but many other major research sites such as Argonne National Lab and Lawrence Livermore National Lab, both of which do highly classified research. I would state without reservation that I have greater confidence in Scientific Linux in that regard than I would for CentOS, or just about any other current Linux distribution.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  3. #13
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4
    From what I read in the Internet, there is a day to a week before SL releases same security fixes (sorry it's too hard to post links before having number of posts in the forum). I guess this is because they need to wait for official RHEL fixes to become available and then compile + distribute. I'm interested to see if you have any other metrics available that show otherwise.

    As for 5.6 I'm not sure you are correct with your assumptions but I'm not going to dig that out because I don't really care. I'm just annoyed you are throwing out assumptions without evidence that SL is presumably better that the genuine RHEL praising the tallent of SL team to repackage other's work. Also ignoring any additional benefits having support from Red Hat.
    Sure, some lab intends to do heavy modifications to its OS, has a talented team to deal with security and any other problems, has a great number of similar machines etc. I can see why they don't care about third party support but this is in my experience not the general linux user especialy when user is not using computer for entertainment only.

    I finish here because whoever can think, can already do a decision for his/her particular needs and whoever cannot think, then nothing can help him/her anyways.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    0

    Cool have you or anyone tried to build compile Xen 4 on SL 6

    [QUOTE=Rubberman;833787]CentOS doesn't have a version 6 out yet, so I switched to Scientific Linux 6 (using it right now). ..

    since you seem to have experience on SL-6 ==> have you tried to build+compile Xen 4 on SL 6 ??? there are tutorials on how to rebuild xen on RHEL Server 6 but i've not found the same guidance using SL 6... i too have used sl-6 some time now (tested also with fedoras 12 to 15 alpha, centos 5.6, OpenSUSE 11.4 and debian 5.x) and every distros have some mal functions either sudden stops or not allowing to virtualize some fully virtualized os'es like win xp... my hw: 12,5GB ram, 2 x 1,5TB disks, cd/dvd, amd phenom x6 processor on gigabyte motherboard, 1 Gbps local net and 110Mbps internet connection, samsung laser printer etc...

    my wish is to achieve a somewhat stabile system with virts: win xp, fedora 7 and 12nfor different purposes and some 'test platform' for newer versions of os... the quite mysterious win xp platform (for a linux/unix/solaris guy) is needed for microcontroller (intel 8051 architecture type) rtos development ...
    brgds wjuhis

  6. #15
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,663
    Well, instructions for building stuff on RHEL6 should also be valid for SL6. A lot of SL documentation are links back to Red Hat. Ditto CentOS. As for virtualization, I am using Oracle's VirtualBox on SL6 without problems, including running Windows XP, Solaris x86, QNX Neutrino, BSD, and various Linux distributions. None have had any problems. I used Xen on CentOS 5.x back over 3 years ago, but stopped using it because I needed the system to support the proprietary nVidia drivers, which the xen-enabled 2.6.18 kernels don't allow. The nVidia drivers will refuse to install when they detect the xen kernel mods. I've been intending to try Qemu and KVM on SL6, but I haven't had the time to do so yet.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  7. #16
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    0
    thanks a lot!!! wjuhis

  8. #17
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    0

    Cool KVM beats Xen (for now anyway)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rubberman View Post
    ... I've been intending to try Qemu and KVM on SL6, but I haven't had the time to do so yet.
    1) although xen is a more beautiful solution (from my point of view i.e. Computer science/academic) i had to give up and install Qemu, KVM on SL6... not finished with installation yet (probs with guest nic-system) but it looks good...

    2) i guess all you guys have it right --> the trend seems to be towards KVM like solutions, partly i think beacause its easier to handle...
    brgds wjuhis
    Last edited by wjuhis; 04-22-2011 at 11:46 PM. Reason: typo fixing

  9. #18
    Linux Guru Lazydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Keystone State
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by wjuhis View Post
    the trend seems to be towards KVM like solutions, partly i think beacause its easier to handle...
    brgds wjuhis
    The trend towards KVM is RH move because it is built into the kernel.

    Regards
    Robert

    Linux
    The adventure of a life time.

    Linux User #296285
    Get Counted

  10. #19
    Linux Newbie SL6-A1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    120
    @avalonit: Your nitpicking at an extremely good distro. Any distro has its flaws, even CentOS which you seem to be vigorously defending.

    Have you even used Scientific Linux 6? I recommend you use it before jumping into the pond so to speak with criticisms of it.

    @SkyHiRider: I agree with Rubberman it is a good distro i use it myself, very stable and secure. You won't regret using it. But not good if you want the latest and greatest, eyecandy or programs. Like Gnome 3, but none the less you can always build from source.

    If you can afford RHEL6 i would definitely try them too. But they do cost a fortune. Also consider Fedora, it is basically the testing platform for RHEL

    I have heard CentOS is very good too.

    If you have the time try them all, and go from there with what you prefer.

    VirtualBox is good, it works well on most OS's, have it currently running on SL6 with Solaris, Win 7 & Debian. As rubberman also said lol

  11. #20
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4
    @SL6-A1000: you seem to be misrepresenting my opinion, please read my posts more carefully (if you like), but don't try summarize them based on I don't know where exactly did you see me "vigorously defending" CentOS".
    My whole point was that if you take code in point of time (e.g. 5.6 or 6.1) you wouldn't see any noticeable difference between these three (except that it may still not be released by the free clones, what is often the case). But the value these distributions provide during their life on your servers/workstations are very different -price, support, timely updates, certifications, etc. Read more above. Saying one fits all needs best is shortsighted. But again, we are not talking about the code at a particular point in time because it is essentially (or almost) the same.
    Think about windows, it can be made workie with for example cygwin, apache httpd, mysql, perl/php and that will not be hard. Hard part would be to maintain such a server and I don't want to be the one doing so.

    Also the recommendation to use VirtualBox is insane when you have KVM integrated into the distro. You save yourself lots of trouble when you use what others have tested and certified. Recommendations to install software from outside the official distro channels when you don't absolutely need I can imagine coming only from people that don't have to maintain servers for a long time. When you install a server your work is not at end, it just begun.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •