It looks like that's from 2009, CentOS has been going strong since then, so whatever their issues were, they've got them sorted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#History_and_organizational_difficulties I think I remember hearing about it around the time, their lead went AWOL, but they were able to get ownership of the domains and other details from him, and so continued. Certainly, their planet doesn't show signs of political difficulty at the moment; http://planet.centos.org/ On 21/04/12 01:13, Richard Forth wrote: > http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=879491 > > On Apr 20, 2012 7:42 PM, "Richard Forth" <richard.fo...@gmail.com > <mailto:richard.fo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > If your interested I got some more background into why SL was > recommended over CentOS. > > Basically CentOS as a project is imploding, due to a lack of money > and developers, largely due to an insider fraud, and word on IRC > channels is that CentOS will be dead by the end of the year. > > Because all the developers bar about 3 people left the project, > updates are slow to virtually non existent, and that CentOS hack > around with the core RHEL code too much to call it a true standards > compliant RHEL rebuild. > > Scientific Linux has the backing of major scientific institutions > like CERN, plus a few other major petro-chemical companies. They do > keep standards compliant RHEL apparently there are only about 6 > extra packages, and the change of logos, that makes it Scientific. > You can opt not to have the sciencey packages installed and you > basically have RHEL for free. > > That's about the size of it. > > Rich > > On Apr 19, 2012 2:21 PM, "Martin Nix" <mar...@nixes.net > <mailto:mar...@nixes.net>> wrote: > > That makes sense actually, thinking back I got my qualification > on RHEL5 (just before 6 came out) & that was all single DVD > > On 19 April 2012 14:12, Richard Forth <richard.fo...@gmail.com > <mailto:richard.fo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Personally, it's not mine either, but that was on 5. Looking > at the CentOS 6 downloads I can see 2x dvd downloads. > Decided to go with the SL recommendation this time. Seems > alright. > > On Apr 19, 2012 12:27 PM, "Martin Nix" <mar...@nixes.net > <mailto:mar...@nixes.net>> wrote: > > Not my experience of Centos I have to say - not sure > where he got that from, all the centos releases I've > installed have been sub 1 DVD and not bloated at all > (unless you aren't particularly choosy about what you > include in the install selection) > > I prepared for my RHCE using a RHEL VM and Centos VM > side by side and it was totally sufficient (not saying > that Scientific isn't BTW) > > Martin > > On 19 April 2012 10:38, Richard Forth > <richard.fo...@gmail.com > <mailto:richard.fo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Instructor recommended it over CentOS apparently > full CentOS is bloatware and is split over 2 DVD'S > where as actual RHEL is less than 1 DVD. Scientific > is closer to original RHEL 6.0, even tho both are > rebuilds of RHEL 6 source. > > On Apr 19, 2012 9:07 AM, "COX Derek" > <derek....@alstom.com <mailto:derek....@alstom.com>> > wrote: > > Good luck with the exam. I did RHCT and RHCE a > couple of years ago and RHCE was tough > > One curiosity, why scientific rather than centos ? > > > > *From:*peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk > <mailto:peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk> > [mailto:peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk > <mailto:peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk>] > *On Behalf Of *Richard Forth > *Sent:* 18 April 2012 23:33 > *To:* Peterborough LUG - No commercial posts > *Subject:* Re: [Peterboro] Kernel Panic in > anaconda Scientific Linux INSTALL [fixed] > > > > Ok, I have an "interesting" update on this. > > > > So the KP I reported below is NOT to do with the > second core being started, it just so happened > that after I stopped the second core as per a > bugzilla report I read somewhere as I slowly > went insane, the installer decided randomly to > complete. > > > > The next problem I encountered was copying a > 3.9Gb file from usb to my home area, basically > my aim is to build a kvm hypervisor to practice > for my RHCSA exam. This explains the 3.9Gb file, > being the DVD image of SL6.0 to be used for the > vm kicks. > > > > about halfway through this file copy i got > another kernel panic, which, after a few > attempts, actually corrupted the lvm volume > forcing me to rekick (again) that failed > randomly numerous times so I decided just to > test, I'd rekick the box with Mint10 which I > knew installed fine previously, that kernel > panicked as well....this is ODD...... > > > > THE MORAL OF THE STORY > > > > Remember what has physically changed (I > installed new memory modules) ....<< yeah i > forgot that bit.. > > > > Took out the new modules, and mint booted fine, > no problems, no kernel panics. > > > > To test also that it wasnt hard drive related, I > created a large file with the follwoing command > (dont run this) > > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1024 > count=[replacethiswithverybignumber] > > > > I control-C'ed at nearly 9Gig so that was all > good, deleted the file "bigfile" > > > > after install I shutdown the computer, took out > the old GOOD ram, and replaced it with the new > BAD ram, but remember I dont know this for sure > (yet) its just a theory. > > > > I booted into mint's grub menu, and found Memtest86+ > > > > I ran that and, so far, as of this writing, it > has counted 5 million + errors, every address > has failed so far, no passes. Zero. > > > > That probably explains the kernel panics now. > You wont believe how many rekicks I've done over > the last 48 hours on this damn thing, I swear my > hair line has receeded a further inch just since > yesterday, > > > > So in conclusion, > > > > Was it actually the second core causing SL6 to > blue screen? Probably not. > > > > Should you always run Memtest86+ on new memory > modules? YES always!! > > > > Should you beat a dead horse for 48 hours before > realising is probably is actually dead instead > of doing something simple like check its pulse, > first? Absolutely > > > > Do I feel like a pratt? Definately. :) > > > > > > Lol, night folks, hope this was entertaining and > informative. > > > > - Rich > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 April 2012 14:26, Richard Forth > <richard.fo...@gmail.com > <mailto:richard.fo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Just to warn everyone of an issue in RHEL 6.0 > (Scientific Linux 6), where mke2fs on lvm > filesystem causes kernel panic, the solution was > to turn off one of the cores in bios in a Core2 > duo machine. After this, setup finished with no > errors, I was also able to turn on the second > core after the reboot when installation > finished, with no errors. > > This may or may not be useful but worth putting > out there. > > - Rich > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any > attachments are confidential and may be > privileged. If you are not a named recipient, > please notify the sender immediately and do not > disclose the contents to another person, use it > for any purpose or store or copy the information > in any medium. > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > <mailto:Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > <mailto:Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > <mailto:Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > <mailto:Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk <mailto:Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro -- All postal correspondence to: The Positive Internet Company, 24 Ganton Street, London. W1F 7QY The Positive Internet Company Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered company number: 3673639. VAT no: 726 7072 28. Registered office: Northside House, Mount Pleasant, Barnet, Herts, EN4 9EE. _______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
