Linux.com

Home Linux Community Forums New to Linux Getting Started with Linux Learning linux severs: Red Hat or Centos ?

Learning linux severs: Red Hat or Centos ?

Link to this post 05 May 11

Ok, guys thanks!

Link to this post 11 May 11

Guys when you say "binary compatible" does it mean that all the commands have the same options and behave in a same way? I have been learning command line commands with UNIX Academy training DVDs and I see they have many options. My concern is, are these options are the same across Linux flavors or there are variations?

Link to this post 12 May 11

brunewarren wrote:

Guys when you say "binary compatible" does it mean that all the commands have the same options and behave in a same way? I have been learning command line commands with UNIX Academy training DVDs and I see they have many options. My concern is, are these options are the same across Linux flavors or there are variations?

Yes, that is what binary compatible means. In other words, the "ls" program from the "coreutils" package in CentOS 5.5 has the exact same options and works the same way as the "ls" program from the "coreutils" package in RHEL 5.5.

However, that does not mean that some utility would behave the same way in some other Linux flavor that is not binary compatible. A utility may be patched by the distro packager to behave more efficiently w/in that OS or may merely be an updated version of that package. For example, the "nmap" utility on Ubuntu 9.04 is nmap version 4.76 and is definitely not going to have all the same options and work the same way as "nmap" in Fedora 12, which is nmap version 5.00-3. The version of nmap on Fedora 11 is nmap version 4.76, but even then, it would not be binary compatible with the nmap in Ubuntu 9.04 because it was built against a slightly different version of libraries and probably has different patches applied to it, even though the nmap command may have the same options and work for all intents and purposes, the same way on both distros.

Link to this post 12 May 11

atreyu wrote:


Yes, that is what binary compatible means. In other words, the "ls" program from the "coreutils" package in CentOS 5.5 has the exact same options and works the same way as the "ls" program from the "coreutils" package in RHEL 5.5.

Be carefull with that. Same options is a consecuence of being "binary compatible". In fact, you could have *exactly* the same command line options and *NOT* be binary compatible-> you have here the born of Linux! A Unix clone!

Example of binary compatible: you can take a "program" from a RedHat installation, place it in a CentOS system and run it without any hassle. That's because they're linked against libraries with exact same compilation options, same kernel... those sort of things.

That's different from having the same options! The programs don't even need to have the same name (check the Directory Server on both CentOS and RedHat... they have different names but are binary compatible ;) ).


Now, for the questions about diferences from one vendor/distribution to another: *there are*. Not many though.

If you learn RedHat's command line options you'll be fine in most of the *nix systems (yes, not only linux).

Regards

Link to this post 12 May 11

There are two major clones of Red Hat Enterprise Linux - CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System), and SL (Scientific Linux). I used CentOS 5.x for 3 years and switched to SL at the beginning of the year as CentOS was delaying release of version 6. They are both good distributions, but SL, to my mind, has the advantage of serious government and university support - it runs the servers for most major scientific labs in the world, including Fermi National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, and CERN in Switzerland.

Link to this post 12 May 11

woboyle wrote:

There are two major clones of Red Hat Enterprise Linux - CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System), and SL (Scientific Linux). I used CentOS 5.x for 3 years and switched to SL at the beginning of the year as CentOS was delaying release of version 6. They are both good distributions, but SL, to my mind, has the advantage of serious government and university support - it runs the servers for most major scientific labs in the world, including Fermi National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, and CERN in Switzerland.

The university support is something that is pushing me to use SL on my servers... if only my cloud provider would give it as an option...

I can't test it on my home server as my cpu has no PAE support :(

Regards

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board