Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Ken Teh]

+1

On 2/22/20 5:41 PM, Keith Lofstrom wrote:

I'm an independent electronics inventor, heavily dependent
on both competent software and competent laboratory science,
both for the knowledge I depend on and the tools I use to
transform that knowledge into products and services for
my customers.

SL has been a very good tool for that.  Thanks to all who
have contributed.

I depend on "benign neglect" for a stable computing
platform - just enough funding and staffing to fix urgent
problems, but not continuously mutate the platform to
conform to ephemeral fashion or management whim.

I moved /from/ Windows to gain that stability, even if
that limits the choice of new widgets I can attach to my
(older) computers.  I have plenty of replacement-spare
old widgets, and I don't need the distraction of a
rapidly mutating platform optimized for market churn
and planned-obsolescence sales.

I'm actually glad that Microsoft, Apple, and IBM are
busily churning those markets, because it keeps their
customers distracted and not bothering me with those
distractions while I think and work.  The hardware cast
off by the fashion-chasers is still abundant on eBay,
and I have enough of it to last me for life (except
for the batteries and backlights for my old Thinkpads).

I presume there are enough like me, some of whom are on
this list, that we can continue to carve out a community
space on top of CentOS, focused on inquiry and reliability.

If CentOS 9 or 10 or 11 goes off the rails, there are
enough of us here to tweak CentOS 7 or 8 into something
we can continue to use, just like Linux was "in the good
old days".

While "security by obscurity" is not optimum, I presume a
smaller community of impoverished science geeks is a less
tempting target for professional software criminals than
million-dollar IT departments for billion-dollar
corporations and governments, or billions of hapless
consumers.  We are part of the global target, but we are
unlikely to attract specific attention from the bad guys.

And while we still benefit from the use of servers at
Fermilabs for our "static" distro and our active mailing
list, perhaps we should have a backup plan for migration
in case some bureaucrat decides to pull the plug on us.
That has /always/ been a risk for what we do here; we are
one presidential tweet away from Saint Louis USDA exile.

As a community of scientific, like-minded Linux users,
let's begin to prepare a rudimentary plan B, and hope
that we never need to implement it.

Keith

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:41:13AM -0600, Eremey Valetov wrote:
> 
> 1.I think that it is very likely that CentOS or a similar Linux 
> distribution will be available in the long-term ...
> 2.It makes sense for a scientific distribution based on CentOS or similar 
> to be maintained.
>   If Scientific Linux is no longer maintained by Fermilab, a dedicated 
> nonprofit organization may take over.
>


The elephant in the room is CERN. There will be a "free" "CERN Linux" until the 
need to run scientific machines
the size of the LHC and the need to analyze data from LHC sized experiments 
goes away (not today, not tomorrow).

At those scales of computing, commercial pricing schemes ("per core", "per 
cpu", "per user", "per seat") break down
and lose meaning. (how do you count "users" of embedded magnet controllers? how 
do you count the number of cpu cores
in LHC tier-1, tier-2, tier-3, etc computing centers spread across 50 
countries? Then multiply that number
by any non-zero "per core" price and you get dollar numbers bigger than the GDP 
of Elbonia).

Anyhow, CERN has been effectively running a linux distribution ever since Red 
Hat went with paid subscriptions,
SLC based on SL at back then (with Fermilab & co), CC based on CentOS now. Of 
course CERN Linux is available
to all the CERN member states, and probably to states that have cooperation 
agreements with CERN.
(link to cern linux) http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/ and
(link to list of cern members) 
https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-governance/member-states

And the issue is bigger than just the Linux base OS:

(link to cern-ends-trial-facebook-workplace) 
https://home.cern/news/news/computing/cern-ends-trial-facebook-workplace
(link to CERN Microsoft Alternatives project) 
https://home.cern/news/news/computing/migrating-open-source-technologies
(link to CERN "drop box") 
http://information-technology.web.cern.ch/services/CERNBox-Service


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Graham Allan]

I find it extremely puzzling that you can express so much fear about IBM 
and then even consider moving into the arms of Oracle!


I used Scientific Linux for about 10 years and it was fantastic. Close 
to 4 years ago I moved to a new place which uses CentOS instead. It also 
works just fine, other than the support cycle being a bit different 
there is almost zero pain or re-learning involved. If that wasn't 
enough, FNAL and CERN have also clearly put their faith into CentOS for 
the future.


On 2/23/2020 12:24 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:

 From below:

Will look forward to move to another distribution.

End excerpt.

The question is:  which distro?  My first hope was Oracle EL 8 -- given 
that Oracle has to compete with IBM and thus, unlike CentOS that may or 
may not fit into the profit/business long term plan of IBM (long term -- 
less than a decade, but more than three or four years -- at least 
through EL 9 first production release), provide a "working and usable" 
product, just as was SL.  After reading comments on this list, I am more 
tempted to give up on EL and move to Ubuntu LTS.  But -- I have not made 
a decision. For those who require a reliable, production, stable, but 
reasonably "current" Linux environment ("current" means that when I need 
an application, I will not find that there are no ports of the recent 
releases of the application to the Linux I am using because the major 
libraries -- .so files -- are too "obsolete"), what choices are 
available?  In so far as possible, I want the same distro to work on 
servers (and have CUDA support for compute servers with Nvidia GPU 
compute boards as well as MPI) and my laptop "workstation".

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Mark Rousell]

On 22/02/2020 23:41, Keith Lofstrom wrote:

As a community of scientific, like-minded Linux users,
let's begin to prepare a rudimentary plan B, and hope
that we never need to implement it.


Well, the CentOS mail list is at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.centos.org_mailman_listinfo_centos=DwIF-g=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=WF8T40FT0U5V7kj7iMquqnj_1MT5nTKBVGHEoEszz5k=AGMtN89abK1cjNUIXDYTnF-KxAl0uRLLX1psW4vbkJc=
 

I suspect that general purpose discussion of Linux customisation has moved away 
from mail lists to web forums.

RE: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Eremey Valetov]

Hello All,

 

Here are my two cents on this matter.

 

1.  I think that it is very likely that CentOS or a similar Linux 
distribution will be available in the long-term. When that is no longer the 
case, that may quite likely be due to broad issues affecting the Linux 
operating system as a whole. If CentOS is no longer available, a Linux 
distribution that is as similar as possible to CentOS would have to be 
identified.
2.  It makes sense for a scientific distribution based on CentOS or similar 
to be maintained. If Scientific Linux is no longer maintained by Fermilab, a 
dedicated nonprofit organization may take over. It may be funded by donations 
or via premium support services by the scientific community. That way, the 
distribution maintenance would be carried out professionally and not as an 
unpaid hobby.

 

Eremey

 

From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov 
 On Behalf Of Yasha Karant
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 0:24
To: scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

 

>From below:

Will look forward to move to another distribution.

End excerpt.

The question is:  which distro?  My first hope was Oracle EL 8 -- given that 
Oracle has to compete with IBM and thus, unlike CentOS that may or may not fit 
into the profit/business long term plan of IBM (long term -- less than a 
decade, but more than three or four years -- at least through EL 9 first 
production release), provide a "working and usable" product, just as was SL.  
After reading comments on this list, I am more tempted to give up on EL and 
move to Ubuntu LTS.  But -- I have not made a decision. For those who require a 
reliable, production, stable, but reasonably "current" Linux environment 
("current" means that when I need an application, I will not find that there 
are no ports of the recent releases of the application to the Linux I am using 
because the major libraries -- .so files -- are too "obsolete"), what choices 
are available?  In so far as possible, I want the same distro to work on 
servers (and have CUDA support for compute servers with Nvidia GPU compute 
boards as well as MPI) and my laptop "workstation". 

If there is a more appropriate list to which to move this discussion, advice 
would be appreciated.   However, such a list needs to be for "professional" 
use, not "enthusiast end-user" use (who are looking for a different gaming 
environment, etc., than MS Win or Mac OS X).

Yasha Karant

On 2/22/20 5:46 PM, Marcelo Ferrarotti wrote:

Hello there,

 

I'm quite sad about SL EoL.

 

I'm no scientist, just an electronics guy who do a lot of research in RF (as 
hobby, mostly testing antennas for ham radio in VHF bands) from Argentina.

 

Fot SL the most "well done" linux distribution, for people who simply knows.

 

Will look forward to move to another distribution.

 

Cheers from Argentina

 

El sáb., 22 de febrero de 2020 8:46 p. m., Keith Lofstrom mailto:kei...@kl-ic.com> > escribió:

I'm an independent electronics inventor, heavily dependent
on both competent software and competent laboratory science,
both for the knowledge I depend on and the tools I use to
transform that knowledge into products and services for
my customers.  

SL has been a very good tool for that.  Thanks to all who
have contributed.

I depend on "benign neglect" for a stable computing
platform - just enough funding and staffing to fix urgent
problems, but not continuously mutate the platform to
conform to ephemeral fashion or management whim.

I moved /from/ Windows to gain that stability, even if
that limits the choice of new widgets I can attach to my
(older) computers.  I have plenty of replacement-spare
old widgets, and I don't need the distraction of a
rapidly mutating platform optimized for market churn
and planned-obsolescence sales. 

I'm actually glad that Microsoft, Apple, and IBM are
busily churning those markets, because it keeps their
customers distracted and not bothering me with those
distractions while I think and work.  The hardware cast
off by the fashion-chasers is still abundant on eBay,
and I have enough of it to last me for life (except
for the batteries and backlights for my old Thinkpads).

I presume there are enough like me, some of whom are on
this list, that we can continue to carve out a community
space on top of CentOS, focused on inquiry and reliability.

If CentOS 9 or 10 or 11 goes off the rails, there are
enough of us here to tweak CentOS 7 or 8 into something
we can continue to use, just like Linux was "in the good
old days". 

While "security by obscurity" is not optimum, I presume a
smaller community of impoverished science geeks is a less
tempting target for professional software criminals than
million-dollar IT departments for billion-dollar
corporations and governments, or billions of ha

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Yasha Karant]

From below:

Will look forward to move to another distribution.

End excerpt.

The question is:  which distro?  My first hope was Oracle EL 8 -- given 
that Oracle has to compete with IBM and thus, unlike CentOS that may or 
may not fit into the profit/business long term plan of IBM (long term -- 
less than a decade, but more than three or four years -- at least 
through EL 9 first production release), provide a "working and usable" 
product, just as was SL.  After reading comments on this list, I am more 
tempted to give up on EL and move to Ubuntu LTS.  But -- I have not made 
a decision. For those who require a reliable, production, stable, but 
reasonably "current" Linux environment ("current" means that when I need 
an application, I will not find that there are no ports of the recent 
releases of the application to the Linux I am using because the major 
libraries -- .so files -- are too "obsolete"), what choices are 
available?  In so far as possible, I want the same distro to work on 
servers (and have CUDA support for compute servers with Nvidia GPU 
compute boards as well as MPI) and my laptop "workstation".


If there is a more appropriate list to which to move this discussion, 
advice would be appreciated.   However, such a list needs to be for 
"professional" use, not "enthusiast end-user" use (who are looking for a 
different gaming environment, etc., than MS Win or Mac OS X).


Yasha Karant

On 2/22/20 5:46 PM, Marcelo Ferrarotti wrote:

Hello there,

I'm quite sad about SL EoL.

I'm no scientist, just an electronics guy who do a lot of research in 
RF (as hobby, mostly testing antennas for ham radio in VHF bands) from 
Argentina.


Fot SL the most "well done" linux distribution, for people who simply 
knows.


Will look forward to move to another distribution.

Cheers from Argentina

El sáb., 22 de febrero de 2020 8:46 p. m., Keith Lofstrom 
mailto:kei...@kl-ic.com>> escribió:


I'm an independent electronics inventor, heavily dependent
on both competent software and competent laboratory science,
both for the knowledge I depend on and the tools I use to
transform that knowledge into products and services for
my customers.

SL has been a very good tool for that.  Thanks to all who
have contributed.

I depend on "benign neglect" for a stable computing
platform - just enough funding and staffing to fix urgent
problems, but not continuously mutate the platform to
conform to ephemeral fashion or management whim.

I moved /from/ Windows to gain that stability, even if
that limits the choice of new widgets I can attach to my
(older) computers.  I have plenty of replacement-spare
old widgets, and I don't need the distraction of a
rapidly mutating platform optimized for market churn
and planned-obsolescence sales.

I'm actually glad that Microsoft, Apple, and IBM are
busily churning those markets, because it keeps their
customers distracted and not bothering me with those
distractions while I think and work.  The hardware cast
off by the fashion-chasers is still abundant on eBay,
and I have enough of it to last me for life (except
for the batteries and backlights for my old Thinkpads).

I presume there are enough like me, some of whom are on
this list, that we can continue to carve out a community
space on top of CentOS, focused on inquiry and reliability.

If CentOS 9 or 10 or 11 goes off the rails, there are
enough of us here to tweak CentOS 7 or 8 into something
we can continue to use, just like Linux was "in the good
old days".

While "security by obscurity" is not optimum, I presume a
smaller community of impoverished science geeks is a less
tempting target for professional software criminals than
million-dollar IT departments for billion-dollar
corporations and governments, or billions of hapless
consumers.  We are part of the global target, but we are
unlikely to attract specific attention from the bad guys.

And while we still benefit from the use of servers at
Fermilabs for our "static" distro and our active mailing
list, perhaps we should have a backup plan for migration
in case some bureaucrat decides to pull the plug on us.
That has /always/ been a risk for what we do here; we are
one presidential tweet away from Saint Louis USDA exile.

As a community of scientific, like-minded Linux users,
let's begin to prepare a rudimentary plan B, and hope
that we never need to implement it.

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com 

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Marcelo Ferrarotti]

Hello there,

I'm quite sad about SL EoL.

I'm no scientist, just an electronics guy who do a lot of research in RF
(as hobby, mostly testing antennas for ham radio in VHF bands) from
Argentina.

Fot SL the most "well done" linux distribution, for people who simply knows.

Will look forward to move to another distribution.

Cheers from Argentina

El sáb., 22 de febrero de 2020 8:46 p. m., Keith Lofstrom 
escribió:

> I'm an independent electronics inventor, heavily dependent
> on both competent software and competent laboratory science,
> both for the knowledge I depend on and the tools I use to
> transform that knowledge into products and services for
> my customers.
>
> SL has been a very good tool for that.  Thanks to all who
> have contributed.
>
> I depend on "benign neglect" for a stable computing
> platform - just enough funding and staffing to fix urgent
> problems, but not continuously mutate the platform to
> conform to ephemeral fashion or management whim.
>
> I moved /from/ Windows to gain that stability, even if
> that limits the choice of new widgets I can attach to my
> (older) computers.  I have plenty of replacement-spare
> old widgets, and I don't need the distraction of a
> rapidly mutating platform optimized for market churn
> and planned-obsolescence sales.
>
> I'm actually glad that Microsoft, Apple, and IBM are
> busily churning those markets, because it keeps their
> customers distracted and not bothering me with those
> distractions while I think and work.  The hardware cast
> off by the fashion-chasers is still abundant on eBay,
> and I have enough of it to last me for life (except
> for the batteries and backlights for my old Thinkpads).
>
> I presume there are enough like me, some of whom are on
> this list, that we can continue to carve out a community
> space on top of CentOS, focused on inquiry and reliability.
>
> If CentOS 9 or 10 or 11 goes off the rails, there are
> enough of us here to tweak CentOS 7 or 8 into something
> we can continue to use, just like Linux was "in the good
> old days".
>
> While "security by obscurity" is not optimum, I presume a
> smaller community of impoverished science geeks is a less
> tempting target for professional software criminals than
> million-dollar IT departments for billion-dollar
> corporations and governments, or billions of hapless
> consumers.  We are part of the global target, but we are
> unlikely to attract specific attention from the bad guys.
>
> And while we still benefit from the use of servers at
> Fermilabs for our "static" distro and our active mailing
> list, perhaps we should have a backup plan for migration
> in case some bureaucrat decides to pull the plug on us.
> That has /always/ been a risk for what we do here; we are
> one presidential tweet away from Saint Louis USDA exile.
>
> As a community of scientific, like-minded Linux users,
> let's begin to prepare a rudimentary plan B, and hope
> that we never need to implement it.
>
> Keith
>
> --
> Keith Lofstrom  kei...@keithl.com
>

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Mark Rousell]

On 22/02/2020 02:15, Yasha Karant wrote:
Two comments.

I am not pursuing the IBM FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
[...]

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think you are pursuing FUD about IBM. I 
was not the person who accused you of that. Indeed, I think you are being 
sensibly cautious.

I just said that it seems to me that IBM does have a profit motive to keep 
CentOS (or some other free access to Red Hat or a functional equivalent) 
available for the foreseeable future.

I understand the current for-profit business arguments that IBM will continue 
to make CentOS viable and stable.  I also do not trust these for the long term 
unless there are some strong fiscal reasons to do so for the long term (e.g., a 
change in taxation policy and enforcement).

Sure, things might change but it seems to me that longer term changes are not 
easily predictable no matter what. I can only say that it seems to me that, for 
the foreseeable future, IBM and Red Hat have no good reason as far as I can see 
to shut down CentOS. In the current world, maximising profits from Red Hat is 
overall facilitated by there being what amounts to a free version of it easily 
available.

Second, the issue of support.  "My" university has changed dramatically under 
the current campus President.  Even under the previous campus administrations, 
the only supported entities were those for administrative computing controlled 
by the administration and that has, and had, no academic freedom.  Worthless 
for any research that interested me.  Most of these functions have been 
outsourced at this time.  The administrators in these areas have no background 
in science or engineering, but rather "management".  I am not deprecating 
anyone, merely putting things into perspective.  There is no internal support 
at my campus for academic freedom curiosity-directed disciplinary research, 
with some support for some persons to secure external funding.  My funding to 
do any of this was external, not internal.

It's a shame that your university computing environment has become so 
commoditised (although it is increasingly the way of things for most 
institutional computing services). It sounds like it's being run purely as a 
business, not as an education/research establishment per se.

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Yasha Karant]

Two comments.

I am not pursuing the IBM FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) marketing and 
business strategy that made IBM the dominant business, accounting, and 
the like, computer systems service, software, and hardware supplier in 
the USA for many years.


The research and scientific market was dominated by DEC (since absorbed 
by other for profit corporations), Control Data, Cray, and Sun (also 
absorbed, currently Oracle as I recall).  Of these, only Sun was 
strongly unix (BSD that was SunOS then Solaris and then left BSD for the 
descendant of ATT System V Release 4 -- the old "original" ATT of unix, 
C, C++, etc., not the current ATT that bought the name, etc., but not 
Murray Hill Bell Labs, etc.). Linux is a relatively new "unix", but the 
history is irrelevant to this reality -- most of the major servers run 
Linux or on a open systems "bare iron" hypervisor for "cloud services" 
that shares much history with other open systems.


Indeed, this list did suffice for support -- the personnel from SL at 
Fermilab would reply with some detail, but not for those who need 
detailed key-stroke "hold the hand and fingers" support.


I understand the current for-profit business arguments that IBM will 
continue to make CentOS viable and stable.  I also do not trust these 
for the long term unless there are some strong fiscal reasons to do so 
for the long term (e.g., a change in taxation policy and enforcement).


Second, the issue of support.  "My" university has changed dramatically 
under the current campus President.  Even under the previous campus 
administrations, the only supported entities were those for 
administrative computing controlled by the administration and that has, 
and had, no academic freedom. Worthless for any research that interested 
me.  Most of these functions have been outsourced at this time.  The 
administrators in these areas have no background in science or 
engineering, but rather "management".  I am not deprecating anyone, 
merely putting things into perspective.  There is no internal support at 
my campus for academic freedom curiosity-directed disciplinary research, 
with some support for some persons to secure external funding.  My 
funding to do any of this was external, not internal.


Yasha Karant

On 2/21/20 5:49 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:

Andrew Z wrote on 2/21/20 1:57 PM:


> It is odd that you have no budget to support critical systems
for your
> department,  Yasha.
>
> What if you power servers down and see how "critical " they
indeed are? And if
> they are not - then get fedora and be done with it.



I don't think Yasha said that he has no budget, did he, only that he 
in effect has a limited budget. Why is it limited? Could it be because 
it was possible to do what was needed within that limited budget?

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Mark Rousell]

Andrew Z wrote on 2/21/20 1:57 PM:
> It is odd that you have no budget to support critical systems for your
> department,  Yasha.
>
> What if you power servers down and see how "critical " they indeed are? And if
> they are not - then get fedora and be done with it.

I don't think Yasha said that he has no budget, did he, only that he in effect 
has a limited budget. Why is it limited? Could it be because it was possible to 
do what was needed within that limited budget?

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Mark Rousell]

On 21/02/2020 19:21, Yasha Karant wrote:
In the simplest terms. I trust IBM to maximize overall return-on-investment 
(e.g., profit), and a "free" CentOS that truly competes with licensed-for-fee 
products does not fit that for-profit model.

Whilst I don't disagree that one should be cautious, it seems to me to be 
strongly in Red Hat's interest (and thus IBM's interest now) to maintain a 
free-to-access distribution that whets people's appetites for the paid version. 
This could change but, for the time being, it does seem to me that the profit 
motive works in users' favour with this particular open source operating system 
and its ecosystem.

Also, while Red Hat remains open source (which looks very unlikely to change) 
then there is nothing to stop another group replicating what CentOS, SL, Oracle 
and others have done. I admit that doing this from scratch today would probably 
be much harder than in the past but it's still technically feasible. Of course, 
to make it realistically sustainable might still require a profit motive and 
business plan of some sort.

Having said all that, I must admit that I can't see why Red Hat (and now IBM) 
really needs CentOS. If they are happy to make CentOS available for free why 
not just make Red Hat available for free but without the support?

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Andrew Z]

Thats why we r losing to china..

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 16:17 P. Larry Nelson  wrote:

> Not at all odd in academia.  On the contrary, it is the norm.
>
>
> Andrew Z wrote on 2/21/20 1:57 PM:
> > It is odd that you have no budget to support critical systems for your
> > department,  Yasha.
> >
> > What if you power servers down and see how "critical " they indeed are?
> And if
> > they are not - then get fedora and be done with it.
>
> --
> P. Larry Nelson (217-693-7418) | IT Administrator Emeritus
> 810 Ventura Rd.| High Energy Physics Group
> Champaign, IL  61820   | Physics Dept., Univ. of Ill.
> MailTo: lnel...@illinois.edu   |
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hep.physics.illinois.edu_home_lnelson_=DwIBaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=_9v30Q-ddy2sbdwT8piZCFYKkgfLFLHBy40YdM7UDvc=2Bnqtes6qFjjlk8EvWyothw0Fi4yhzsrYAV6DEizrGM=
>  
>
> --
>   "Information without accountability is just noise."  - P.L. Nelson
>

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[P. Larry Nelson]

Not at all odd in academia.  On the contrary, it is the norm.


Andrew Z wrote on 2/21/20 1:57 PM:
It is odd that you have no budget to support critical systems for your 
department,  Yasha.


What if you power servers down and see how "critical " they indeed are? And if 
they are not - then get fedora and be done with it.


--
P. Larry Nelson (217-693-7418) | IT Administrator Emeritus
810 Ventura Rd.| High Energy Physics Group
Champaign, IL  61820   | Physics Dept., Univ. of Ill.
MailTo: lnel...@illinois.edu   | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hep.physics.illinois.edu_home_lnelson_=DwIDaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=xMvnjGKdYon7qCS8RwTK4EtHUUi1_l0sq3l2lt4iddU=LMYZGwwYk-up60pKrnQrswyT6KIrbewHccwTTiyyoxQ= 
--

 "Information without accountability is just noise."  - P.L. Nelson

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Andrew Z]

It is odd that you have no budget to support critical systems for your
department,  Yasha.

What if you power servers down and see how "critical " they indeed are? And
if they are not - then get fedora and be done with it.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 14:46 ONeal, Miles <
0be99a30c213-dmarc-requ...@listserv.fnal.gov> wrote:

> SL didn't have "support", but the mailing list provided excellent,
> real-world support. At least during the SL 3-5 timeframe, CentOS had
> nothing even close that I could find.
>
> There's obvious value in the broader community involvement that comes
> through CentOS, and in providing a free alternative for those who don't
> need / can't afford RH licensing. Wiping out CentOS would hurt the
> ecosystem. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it seems unlikely.
>
> One company I worked for never bought RHEL because it would have been too
> pricey under the circumstances. We found a cou0ple of bugs that got
> reported back upstream. Another company I worked for moved to RHEL from
> CentOS as soon as it could afford to, because we needed the support. Both
> companies made the right decision for their situation, and both were good
> for RedHat, just in different ways.
>
> RedHat has been fine with CentOS and SL. I see no reason for that to
> change. IBM is not micro-managing RedHat. Hopefully that won't change,
> either.
>
> -Miles
> --
> *From:* owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov <
> owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov> on behalf of Yasha Karant
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2020 13:21
> *To:* SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@fnal.gov 
> *Subject:* Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?
>
> Caution: EXTERNAL email
>
>
> As we could not afford the license-for-fee model that RedHat started a
> number of years ago (prior to which, one could download and install
> production RedHat -- not the "Fedora" equivalent -- licensed for free but
> without RedHat support -- but updates, etc., were available without fee),
> we too went with CentOS.  Before RH, I used Debian, but there were issues
> of stability.  RH was stable.  The problem with CentOS was that it was more
> or less a volunteer deployment, and we did not have the personnel to join
> the effort as our internal and external funding could not be used for that
> purpose.  Once SL became a more-or-less "stock" version of RHEL, and given
> that SL had professional funded employed personnel (as required by HEP and
> funded by the various governments that support Fermilab or CERN), this was
> the logical choice.  SL came with no support, but as several of us (myself
> included) were at one epoch "kernels internals" persons, and were "systems
> persons", and not as "IT" but as scientists and engineers, with the SL
> users list for "help", we had no significant issues -- see the recent
> exchange concerning a bug in EPEL that prevented an "easy" upgrade of the
> MATE desktop GUI environment.
>
> However, RedHat is now owned by IBM, and CentOS is the RedHat "licensed
> for free" distro front end.   The only reason IBM exists is not to support
> the goals of the Freesoftware Foundation (GPL), but to support profit -- it
> is a major for-profit (effectively, trans-national) corporation.  Thus, one
> cannot rely upon entities within such a corporation to do anything that
> will undermine or reduce the profits of the corporation (including the
> overall compensation package of the CEO and the like), except in those
> nation states that have enforced regulations controlling the product
> deployments.  The USA has very little compared to much of the EU.  As
> Fermilab/CERN do not exist for the same purpose as IBM (individual
> scientists who may be the group leaders, etc., at such entities
> notwithstanding), SL was a viable alternative.  There is absolutely no
> reason to assume that IBM will be such an alternative unless one wants to
> pay.  I am not going to argue with those who claim we are "freeloaders"
> despite paying the taxes that in part support Fermilab and CERN, but not
> CentOS -- if we cannot pay, we should not use -- but the realities of much
> university-based academic research is that there is no money and we do what
> we can.
>
> In the simplest terms. I trust IBM to maximize overall
> return-on-investment (e.g., profit), and a "free" CentOS that truly
> competes with licensed-for-fee products does not fit that for-profit model.
>
> Yasha Karant
>
> On 2/21/20 7:41 AM, Michel Jouvin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a great
> project too and has b

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[ONeal, Miles]

SL didn't have "support", but the mailing list provided excellent, real-world 
support. At least during the SL 3-5 timeframe, CentOS had nothing even close 
that I could find.

There's obvious value in the broader community involvement that comes through 
CentOS, and in providing a free alternative for those who don't need / can't 
afford RH licensing. Wiping out CentOS would hurt the ecosystem. That doesn't 
mean it can't happen, but it seems unlikely.

One company I worked for never bought RHEL because it would have been too 
pricey under the circumstances. We found a cou0ple of bugs that got reported 
back upstream. Another company I worked for moved to RHEL from CentOS as soon 
as it could afford to, because we needed the support. Both companies made the 
right decision for their situation, and both were good for RedHat, just in 
different ways.

RedHat has been fine with CentOS and SL. I see no reason for that to change. 
IBM is not micro-managing RedHat. Hopefully that won't change, either.

-Miles

From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov 
 on behalf of Yasha Karant 

Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 13:21
To: SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@fnal.gov 
Subject: Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

Caution: EXTERNAL email



As we could not afford the license-for-fee model that RedHat started a number 
of years ago (prior to which, one could download and install production RedHat 
-- not the "Fedora" equivalent -- licensed for free but without RedHat support 
-- but updates, etc., were available without fee), we too went with CentOS.  
Before RH, I used Debian, but there were issues of stability.  RH was stable.  
The problem with CentOS was that it was more or less a volunteer deployment, 
and we did not have the personnel to join the effort as our internal and 
external funding could not be used for that purpose.  Once SL became a 
more-or-less "stock" version of RHEL, and given that SL had professional funded 
employed personnel (as required by HEP and funded by the various governments 
that support Fermilab or CERN), this was the logical choice.  SL came with no 
support, but as several of us (myself included) were at one epoch "kernels 
internals" persons, and were "systems persons", and not as "IT" but as 
scientists and engineers, with the SL users list for "help", we had no 
significant issues -- see the recent exchange concerning a bug in EPEL that 
prevented an "easy" upgrade of the MATE desktop GUI environment.

However, RedHat is now owned by IBM, and CentOS is the RedHat "licensed for 
free" distro front end.   The only reason IBM exists is not to support the 
goals of the Freesoftware Foundation (GPL), but to support profit -- it is a 
major for-profit (effectively, trans-national) corporation.  Thus, one cannot 
rely upon entities within such a corporation to do anything that will undermine 
or reduce the profits of the corporation (including the overall compensation 
package of the CEO and the like), except in those nation states that have 
enforced regulations controlling the product deployments.  The USA has very 
little compared to much of the EU.  As Fermilab/CERN do not exist for the same 
purpose as IBM (individual scientists who may be the group leaders, etc., at 
such entities  notwithstanding), SL was a viable alternative.  There is 
absolutely no reason to assume that IBM will be such an alternative unless one 
wants to pay.  I am not going to argue with those who claim we are 
"freeloaders" despite paying the taxes that in part support Fermilab and CERN, 
but not CentOS -- if we cannot pay, we should not use -- but the realities of 
much university-based academic research is that there is no money and we do 
what we can.

In the simplest terms. I trust IBM to maximize overall return-on-investment 
(e.g., profit), and a "free" CentOS that truly competes with licensed-for-fee 
products does not fit that for-profit model.

Yasha Karant

On 2/21/20 7:41 AM, Michel Jouvin wrote:

Hi,

I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a great 
project too and has been working well since it was "acquired" by Red Hat. I see 
no official sign that it should change. Moving from SL to CentOS is 
straightforward, I don't think you can speak about it as a migration as it is 
exactly the same product. And staying with CentOS will give you a chance to 
meet the DUNE people at some point and more generally the HEP community if you 
liked interacting with it!

Cheers,

Michel

Le 21/02/2020 à 16:32, Peter Willis a écrit :

Hello,

Thanks to everyone for clarifying the future status of SL.

I guess it’s time to start researching he docs for Ubuntu/Debian or something.



Looks like we need to revise our computing cluster plan.

The computer here is pretty small with only two nodes and a controller 
totallin

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Jon Pruente]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:21 PM Yasha Karant  wrote:

> In the simplest terms. I trust IBM to maximize overall
> return-on-investment (e.g., profit), and a "free" CentOS that truly
> competes with licensed-for-fee products does not fit that for-profit model.
>

The amount of anti-IBM FUD in these kinds of threads is staggering. IBM has
supported Linux for literal decades, even on their mainframe hardware.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ibm.com_ibm_history_ibm100_us_en_icons_linux_=DwIBaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=CVEqyWX2tM2UdAysPgM_G95hgpoVNM-YyXhIDY6lhCQ=2hr7BD-hdfyYkJk3dI3pBx7erjqgUanUk5wDUZ7FtRo=
 

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Yasha Karant]

As we could not afford the license-for-fee model that RedHat started a 
number of years ago (prior to which, one could download and install 
production RedHat -- not the "Fedora" equivalent -- licensed for free 
but without RedHat support -- but updates, etc., were available without 
fee), we too went with CentOS.  Before RH, I used Debian, but there were 
issues of stability.  RH was stable.  The problem with CentOS was that 
it was more or less a volunteer deployment, and we did not have the 
personnel to join the effort as our internal and external funding could 
not be used for that purpose.  Once SL became a more-or-less "stock" 
version of RHEL, and given that SL had professional funded employed 
personnel (as required by HEP and funded by the various governments that 
support Fermilab or CERN), this was the logical choice.  SL came with no 
support, but as several of us (myself included) were at one epoch 
"kernels internals" persons, and were "systems persons", and not as "IT" 
but as scientists and engineers, with the SL users list for "help", we 
had no significant issues -- see the recent exchange concerning a bug in 
EPEL that prevented an "easy" upgrade of the MATE desktop GUI environment.


However, RedHat is now owned by IBM, and CentOS is the RedHat "licensed 
for free" distro front end.   The only reason IBM exists is not to 
support the goals of the Freesoftware Foundation (GPL), but to support 
profit -- it is a major for-profit (effectively, trans-national) 
corporation.  Thus, one cannot rely upon entities within such a 
corporation to do anything that will undermine or reduce the profits of 
the corporation (including the overall compensation package of the CEO 
and the like), except in those nation states that have enforced 
regulations controlling the product deployments.  The USA has very 
little compared to much of the EU.  As Fermilab/CERN do not exist for 
the same purpose as IBM (individual scientists who may be the group 
leaders, etc., at such entities  notwithstanding), SL was a viable 
alternative.  There is absolutely no reason to assume that IBM will be 
such an alternative unless one wants to pay.  I am not going to argue 
with those who claim we are "freeloaders" despite paying the taxes that 
in part support Fermilab and CERN, but not CentOS -- if we cannot pay, 
we should not use -- but the realities of much university-based academic 
research is that there is no money and we do what we can.


In the simplest terms. I trust IBM to maximize overall 
return-on-investment (e.g., profit), and a "free" CentOS that truly 
competes with licensed-for-fee products does not fit that for-profit model.


Yasha Karant

On 2/21/20 7:41 AM, Michel Jouvin wrote:


Hi,

I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a 
great project too and has been working well since it was "acquired" by 
Red Hat. I see no official sign that it should change. Moving from SL 
to CentOS is straightforward, I don't think you can speak about it as 
a migration as it is exactly the same product. And staying with CentOS 
will give you a chance to meet the DUNE people at some point and more 
generally the HEP community if you liked interacting with it!


Cheers,

Michel

Le 21/02/2020 à 16:32, Peter Willis a écrit :


Hello,


Thanks to everyone for clarifying the future status of SL.

I guess it’s time to start researching he docs for Ubuntu/Debian or 
something.


Looks like we need to revise our computing cluster plan.

The computer here is pretty small with only two nodes and a 
controller totalling 112 CPUs.


We use it for numerical modelling of ocean and river currents and 
sediment transport (OpenMP/MPICH/FORTRAN).


The changeover will be pretty small. We are still waiting for the OK 
for a new node or two.


The current nodes are ten years old. The update to a controller and 
SL7 was a last ditch effort to join the two nodes and increase the 
scale of the models without costing too much more.


In other news, the link you shared has an article about ‘DUNE’ which 
seems like an interesting project.


I’d certainly frostbite a few toes to just stand around and watch 
that thing run experiments.


Thanks for the info,

Peter

>Hello Peter,

>

>> Is Scientific Linux still active?

>Scientific Linux 6 and 7 will be supported until they are EOL, but 
there will be no SL8.


>

>Here is the official announcement from last April:

>

>https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1904=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS=817 



>

>Bonnie King

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Marcelo Ferrarotti]

Hello there,

I'm quite sad about SL EoL.

I'm no scientist, just an electronics guy who do a lot of research in RF
(as hobby, mostly testing antennas for ham radio in VHF bands) from
Argentina.

Fot SL the most "well done" linux distribution, for people who simply knows.

Will look forward to move to another distribution.

Cheers from Argentina

Marcelo


El vie., 21 de feb. de 2020 a la(s) 13:03, Peter Willis (pwil...@aslenv.com)
escribió:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I can’t say I’m negative toward CentOS, I used it back in the late 90s (?
> Maybe early 00s), as an alternative to RedHat at that time.
>
> It’s more a familiarity thing.  I have used more Debian based Linux
> distros since the mid 1990s than anything else.
>
> I will certainly look into CentOS as an option. Could be a shorter path
> to completion.
>
> Thanks for reminding of that as an alternative.
>
>
>
> My friend just toured Fermi Lab and brought me back a lapel pin. I was
> thankful but very envious of her visit there.
>
> It’s certainly on my list.
>
>
>
> I could probably just retire and, quite happily,  tour all the worlds
> particle accelerator facilities.
>
> Make a nice scrapbook of blueprints.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Hi,
>
> >I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a great
> project too and has been working well since it was "acquired" by Red Hat. I
> see no >official sign that it should change. Moving from SL to CentOS is
> straightforward, I don't think you can speak about it as a migration as it
> is exactly the same >product. And staying with CentOS will give you a
> chance to meet the DUNE people at some point and more generally the HEP
> community if you liked >interacting with it!
>
> >Cheers,
>


-- 
Marcelo Ferrarotti

RE: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Peter Willis]

Hello,
 
I can't say I'm negative toward CentOS, I used it back in the late 90s (? Maybe 
early 00s), as an alternative to RedHat at that time.
It's more a familiarity thing.  I have used more Debian based Linux distros 
since the mid 1990s than anything else.
I will certainly look into CentOS as an option. Could be a shorter path to 
completion.
Thanks for reminding of that as an alternative.
 
My friend just toured Fermi Lab and brought me back a lapel pin. I was thankful 
but very envious of her visit there.
It's certainly on my list. 
 
I could probably just retire and, quite happily,  tour all the worlds particle 
accelerator facilities.
Make a nice scrapbook of blueprints.
 
Peter
 
 
 
>Hi,
>I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a great 
>project too and has been working well since it was "acquired" by Red Hat. I 
>see no >official sign that it should change. Moving from SL to CentOS is 
>straightforward, I don't think you can speak about it as a migration as it is 
>exactly the same >product. And staying with CentOS will give you a chance to 
>meet the DUNE people at some point and more generally the HEP community if you 
>liked >interacting with it!
>Cheers,

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Michel Jouvin]

Hi,

I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a great 
project too and has been working well since it was "acquired" by Red 
Hat. I see no official sign that it should change. Moving from SL to 
CentOS is straightforward, I don't think you can speak about it as a 
migration as it is exactly the same product. And staying with CentOS 
will give you a chance to meet the DUNE people at some point and more 
generally the HEP community if you liked interacting with it!


Cheers,

Michel

Le 21/02/2020 à 16:32, Peter Willis a écrit :


Hello,


Thanks to everyone for clarifying the future status of SL.

I guess it’s time to start researching he docs for Ubuntu/Debian or 
something.


Looks like we need to revise our computing cluster plan.

The computer here is pretty small with only two nodes and a controller 
totalling 112 CPUs.


We use it for numerical modelling of ocean and river currents and 
sediment transport (OpenMP/MPICH/FORTRAN).


The changeover will be pretty small. We are still waiting for the OK 
for a new node or two.


The current nodes are ten years old. The update to a controller and 
SL7 was a last ditch effort to join the two nodes and increase the 
scale of the models without costing too much more.


In other news, the link you shared has an article about ‘DUNE’ which 
seems like an interesting project.


I’d certainly frostbite a few toes to just stand around and watch that 
thing run experiments.


Thanks for the info,

Peter

>Hello Peter,

>

>> Is Scientific Linux still active?

>Scientific Linux 6 and 7 will be supported until they are EOL, but 
there will be no SL8.


>

>Here is the official announcement from last April:

>

>https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1904=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS=817

>

>Bonnie King

RE: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Peter Willis]

Hello,

Thanks to everyone for clarifying the future status of SL.
I guess it's time to start researching he docs for Ubuntu/Debian or something.
 
Looks like we need to revise our computing cluster plan.
The computer here is pretty small with only two nodes and a controller 
totalling 112 CPUs.
We use it for numerical modelling of ocean and river currents and sediment 
transport (OpenMP/MPICH/FORTRAN).
The changeover will be pretty small. We are still waiting for the OK for a new 
node or two.
The current nodes are ten years old. The update to a controller and SL7 was a 
last ditch effort to join the two nodes and increase the scale of the models 
without costing too much more. 
 
In other news, the link you shared has an article about 'DUNE' which seems like 
an interesting project.
I'd certainly frostbite a few toes to just stand around and watch that thing 
run experiments.
 
Thanks for the info,
 
Peter
 
 
>Hello Peter,
> 
>> Is Scientific Linux still active?
>Scientific Linux 6 and 7 will be supported until they are EOL, but there will 
>be no SL8.
> 
>Here is the official announcement from last April:
> 
>https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1904 
>
> =SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS=817
> 
>Bonnie King

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Bonnie King]

Hello Peter,

> Is Scientific Linux still active?

Scientific Linux 6 and 7 will be supported until they are EOL, but there will 
be no SL8.

Here is the official announcement from last April:

https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1904=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS=817

Bonnie King

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

[Yasha Karant]

I used the term "dead".  SL7 (and earlier?) is still active.  By dead, I 
did not mean SL 7, I meant SL in general for the future.   As I 
understand the situation, Fermilab/CERN (and thus the HEP community upon 
which many of us are "piggybacking" -- not freeloading if one is paying 
taxes to a government that is providing funding to Fermilab or CERN) has 
abandoned SL going forward -- NO SL 8, but Fermilab/CERN will be using 
CentOS 8 (with modifications?  I do not know).  CentOS is a RedHat 
subsidiary, and RedHat is fully owned by IBM.  Thus, one must depend 
upon the good will (profit motive?) of IBM to provide a viable CentOS 8 
that may be competing with the for-profit RHEL 8 of IBM.  SL may be 
dependent upon the RHEL sources that RedHat and IBM are required to 
provide under the GPL, etc., but will make things operational and, as a 
separate distro, also is required to release source.  Once SL is not a 
distro, internal changes at Fermilab/CERN to CentOS do not have the same 
general "public" immediacy as would an official public distro.  As has 
been explained elsewhere, going from such source to a bootable stable 
useful OS environment is no trivial matter -- an OS does not simply and 
automatically "rebuild" from such source.  It is important that a distro 
be professionally maintained, not by amateur volunteers.  The latter 
approach may work for some applications, but not an entire OS that is a 
much more complicated entity than most applications.  The professional 
staff doing the distro presumably have this work as part of their 
assigned compensated duties, not simply as an amateur when one has the 
time for it (retired or independently wealthy professionals doing the 
distro are not the personnel base upon which one can rely).


On 2/20/20 11:12 PM, Pwillis wrote:

Hello,

Is Scientific Linux still active?
There was another message that alluded to ’SL’ being ‘dead’.

Installing this on a diskless node system is not an option if the distribution 
is no longer supported.

Thanks fort any info,

Peter