Hacker News Reader

The SL additions seem very inconsequential for most users. The article doesn't imho give any good reasons to use SL instead of some other RHEL clone (such as CentOS).

View on HN

SL has a couple full time employees building it. Also, they publish a lot of info about their build process. Centos doesn't. Sometime their releases are slower.

PUIAS Linux also has an staff team building it, and more in the way of mathematical software in their repositories.

I'm using it on a desktop at home behind a router & so I don't watch the security updates especially.

You can add the PUIAS 'addon' and 'computational' repositories to a CentOS desktop with appropriate use of yum-priorities.

I quite agree. The article seems to say something along the lines of "It's Red Hat! But it's not Red Hat!" I really don't see what's so great about this distro (having used it myself once). If it works for the people at CERN, that's fine of course. However, I think there's little reason to call SL a 'great distro'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com