Re: scientific.org
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 06:27:07PM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried the Institute for Advanced Study Springdale (IAS)
> EL 8 distro?
>
What for? I have my "16 free RHEL subscriptions" to run my 1 el8 machine
for developing and supporting the MIDAS data acquisition package.
As for everything else, at this very moment, I am:
a) converting all our RaspberyPi and FPGA SoC machines (about 10 of them) from
CentOS-7.3 to Raspbian (ARM Debian)
b) converting our VME processors to Ubuntu and 32-bit Debian (and updating the
VME kernel drivers to linux-5.8)
c) telling everybody to install Ubuntu or wait for CERN ("We will keep you
informed about
any developments in this area during Q1 2021." with Q1 ending in 25 days or so).
If RHEL8 (or clone) for 32-bit ARM and 32-bit x86 did exist... but... I think...
The ship has sailed.
--
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: scientific.org
I too am suggesting one switches to Ubuntu LTS current production
(20.4.x for all production x). The one issue that I have not been able
to resolve: what is the installed base of LTS for real world production
use? I know of several "smallish" list servers that are using LTS. Are
others using production VME machines also considering LTS?
At some point, unless IBM business plans / management preclude this,
there will be an IBM RHEL 9. By that point, it may well be too late for
the HEP community assuming CERN/Fermilab wants to have some "common"
base available to the HEP community (presumably, beyond the immediate
NDA collaboration contracts that exist for the various CERN/Fermilab
experiments). Several correspondents to this list have felt that this
discussion does not apply to the SL community, a point of view with
which I disagree in that it is an essential part of software and systems
engineering to include future planning, both for deployment and support.
With the evident demise of SL 8 and beyond (and evidently some issues
with the maintenance of SL 7.9 if I have not misread postings to this
list), SL will not be the way forward. Your observations on RHEL
indicate that except for those who license RHEL for fee with an IBM RH
support contract, RHEL is not an viable stable long-term (nor immediate)
alternative.
On 3/5/21 1:09 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 06:27:07PM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote:
Has anyone tried the Institute for Advanced Study Springdale (IAS)
EL 8 distro?
What for? I have my "16 free RHEL subscriptions" to run my 1 el8 machine
for developing and supporting the MIDAS data acquisition package.
As for everything else, at this very moment, I am:
a) converting all our RaspberyPi and FPGA SoC machines (about 10 of them) from
CentOS-7.3 to Raspbian (ARM Debian)
b) converting our VME processors to Ubuntu and 32-bit Debian (and updating the
VME kernel drivers to linux-5.8)
c) telling everybody to install Ubuntu or wait for CERN ("We will keep you
informed about
any developments in this area during Q1 2021." with Q1 ending in 25 days or so).
If RHEL8 (or clone) for 32-bit ARM and 32-bit x86 did exist... but... I think...
The ship has sailed.
Re: scientific.org
> At some point ... Yasha you are writing some very strange stuff. > NDA collaboration contracts that exist for the various > CERN/Fermilab experiments ... if your NDA stands for "non-disclosure ...", then I must say that I do not believe there are any secret agreements between experiments and linux vendors. We do have NDAs with hardware vendors for access to secret documentation and secret firmware source code, but I never heard of any special agreements with any Linux vendors. if you know something we do not know, please tell us more. > ... Your observations on RHEL indicate that except for those > who license RHEL for fee with an IBM RH support contract, RHEL is > not an viable stable long-term (nor immediate) alternative. I must put it on record that I did not say any such thing. I say: a) RHEL8 is here and you can use it free of charge (16 free subscriptions) b) you can upgrade your CentOS-8 machine to RHEL8 with minimum trouble (I posted instructions on this list here) c) Red Hat made a serious mistake back in December by announcing "the end of CentOS as we know it" without providing (a) and (b) ahead of time d) by not providing 32-bit x86 and 32-bit ARM versions of RHEL they are at a severe disadvantage in places like a typical Physics lab (CentOS used to provide both, but they killed it). So there. There is nothing wrong with RHEL8. If it works for you, use it! -- 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: scientific.org
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:09 PM Konstantin Olchanski wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 06:27:07PM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: > > > > Has anyone tried the Institute for Advanced Study Springdale (IAS) > > EL 8 distro? > > > > What for? I have my "16 free RHEL subscriptions" to run my 1 el8 machine > for developing and supporting the MIDAS data acquisition package. I do some larger scale work, and the licensing for these includes a lot of handwaving that makes corporate lawyers very, very nervous about allowing it inside their networks. Coupled with the uncertainty of CentOS 8 Stream components being compatible with RHEL 8, whether EPEL can or will use CentOS Stream or RHEL 8 for building binary compatible requirements, the thoughtful delight that is "Modularity", and at least 7 distinct, overlapping poorly distinguished and partially overlapping software channels for no published or useful reason, and the unwelcome and unnecessary segregation of specific "devel" packages into the "Devel" channel which is not available in CentOS 8 Stream, and I'm seriously discouraged from pushing RHEL 8 and CentOs 8 for any projects whatsoever. Hopefully by the time RHEL 9 rolls around, Red Hat will have let go bright eyed architects who failed to learn the lessons of Red Hat 9 trying to be a "point release free" version of an operating system and learned, the hard way, that point releases are something people rely on and recovered with RHEL 2.x and RHEL 3.x shortly therafter back around 2003. > As for everything else, at this very moment, I am: > > a) converting all our RaspberyPi and FPGA SoC machines (about 10 of them) > from CentOS-7.3 to Raspbian (ARM Debian) Are you? How's that working out?
Re: scientific.org
Most HEP (and sometimes other) "academic" collaborations have collaboration agreements for all member institutions (or groups or individuals) that no work done by the collaboration may be published or discussed without permission from the collaboration, typically a set of PIs (often not a democratic vote -- one person whose name may appear on the published papers or public presentations, one vote -- but rather some of the "group leaders" or the like). These limitations not only apply to announcement of research results, but (often) deep details of the apparatus, that these days, can include software, applications, and perhaps computer environments (e.g., modifications to an OS, special OS drivers for specific hardware, etc.). Once it has been decided that something can be released, then it is -- equivalent to a NDA. Typically again under this sort of NDA, all of these details may be revealed to the funding agency/ies (those who "pay the bills") but the agency has agreed not to release this in public. In the USA, save for classified (weapons, clandestine services, etc.) material, those things developed by Federal Government agencies are "public". That was my meaning of NDA. On 3/5/21 4:02 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: At some point ... Yasha you are writing some very strange stuff. NDA collaboration contracts that exist for the various CERN/Fermilab experiments ... if your NDA stands for "non-disclosure ...", then I must say that I do not believe there are any secret agreements between experiments and linux vendors. We do have NDAs with hardware vendors for access to secret documentation and secret firmware source code, but I never heard of any special agreements with any Linux vendors. if you know something we do not know, please tell us more. ... Your observations on RHEL indicate that except for those who license RHEL for fee with an IBM RH support contract, RHEL is not an viable stable long-term (nor immediate) alternative. I must put it on record that I did not say any such thing. I say: a) RHEL8 is here and you can use it free of charge (16 free subscriptions) b) you can upgrade your CentOS-8 machine to RHEL8 with minimum trouble (I posted instructions on this list here) c) Red Hat made a serious mistake back in December by announcing "the end of CentOS as we know it" without providing (a) and (b) ahead of time d) by not providing 32-bit x86 and 32-bit ARM versions of RHEL they are at a severe disadvantage in places like a typical Physics lab (CentOS used to provide both, but they killed it). So there. There is nothing wrong with RHEL8. If it works for you, use it!
Re: scientific.org
To add. all official published results must be done using "official analysis", and for the purposes of this discussion, said "official analysis" often runs exclusively on RedHat-flavour linuxes. > > Most HEP (and sometimes other) "academic" collaborations have > collaboration agreements for all member institutions (or groups or ... > > That was my meaning of NDA. > That has nothing to do with Linux and Red Hat. I do not know why you bring it up. And you did not get it completely right, either. In Physics, we do not have to sign legal NDAs to participate in experiments and projects. It is basically an honor system, and everybody plays by the rules and/or breaks the rules per basic human nature. Books have been written about this stuff. K.O. On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:30:13PM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: > Most HEP (and sometimes other) "academic" collaborations have > collaboration agreements for all member institutions (or groups or > individuals) that no work done by the collaboration may be published > or discussed without permission from the collaboration, typically a > set of PIs (often not a democratic vote -- one person whose name may > appear on the published papers or public presentations, one vote -- > but rather some of the "group leaders" or the like). These > limitations not only apply to announcement of research results, but > (often) deep details of the apparatus, that these days, can include > software, applications, and perhaps computer environments (e.g., > modifications to an OS, special OS drivers for specific hardware, > etc.). Once it has been decided that something can be released, > then it is -- equivalent to a NDA. Typically again under this sort > of NDA, all of these details may be revealed to the funding > agency/ies (those who "pay the bills") but the agency has agreed not > to release this in public. In the USA, save for classified > (weapons, clandestine services, etc.) material, those things > developed by Federal Government agencies are "public". > > That was my meaning of NDA. > > On 3/5/21 4:02 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: > >>At some point ... > > > >Yasha you are writing some very strange stuff. > > > >>NDA collaboration contracts that exist for the various > >>CERN/Fermilab experiments ... > > > >if your NDA stands for "non-disclosure ...", then I must say that > >I do not believe there are any secret agreements between experiments > >and linux vendors. We do have NDAs with hardware vendors for > >access to secret documentation and secret firmware source code, > >but I never heard of any special agreements with any Linux vendors. > > > >if you know something we do not know, please tell us more. > > > >>... Your observations on RHEL indicate that except for those > >>who license RHEL for fee with an IBM RH support contract, RHEL is > >>not an viable stable long-term (nor immediate) alternative. > > > >I must put it on record that I did not say any such thing. > > > >I say: > > > >a) RHEL8 is here and you can use it free of charge (16 free subscriptions) > >b) you can upgrade your CentOS-8 machine to RHEL8 with minimum trouble (I > >posted instructions on this list here) > >c) Red Hat made a serious mistake back in December by announcing "the end of > >CentOS as we know it" without providing (a) and (b) ahead of time > >d) by not providing 32-bit x86 and 32-bit ARM versions of RHEL they are at a > >severe disadvantage in places like a typical Physics lab (CentOS used to > >provide both, but they killed it). > > > >So there. There is nothing wrong with RHEL8. If it works for you, use it! > > -- 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: scientific.org
As for whether or not "legally binding" contracts/NDAs are used (that depends in part upon the nation under which legal system the collaborator may reside and/or that is providing the funding), the system is quite "political" and "power based", as indeed has appeared in a number of books. For those who violate the rules, future funding is endangered, and for those who are post-docs or non-tenured "permanent" Faculty, the future "employment" in HEP greatly may be endangered. Shall I continue with the realities of the actual current HEP system (that has been in place since at least the Carlo Rubbia epoch). As for the official analysis, my understanding is that the comment below is a reference to the specific, and possibly not fully released, software application program/s, utilities, and environment (e.g., RH linuxes) that is required by the rules of the collaboration. Part of this requirement is proper software engineering to avoid (minimise) software defects. However, even if the software source is released, the detailed data upon which the applications perform the "official analysis" typically is not available -- making "debugging" and verification outside the collaboration rather problematic. On 3/5/21 5:31 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: To add. all official published results must be done using "official analysis", and for the purposes of this discussion, said "official analysis" often runs exclusively on RedHat-flavour linuxes. Most HEP (and sometimes other) "academic" collaborations have collaboration agreements for all member institutions (or groups or ... That was my meaning of NDA. That has nothing to do with Linux and Red Hat. I do not know why you bring it up. And you did not get it completely right, either. In Physics, we do not have to sign legal NDAs to participate in experiments and projects. It is basically an honor system, and everybody plays by the rules and/or breaks the rules per basic human nature. Books have been written about this stuff. K.O. On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:30:13PM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: Most HEP (and sometimes other) "academic" collaborations have collaboration agreements for all member institutions (or groups or individuals) that no work done by the collaboration may be published or discussed without permission from the collaboration, typically a set of PIs (often not a democratic vote -- one person whose name may appear on the published papers or public presentations, one vote -- but rather some of the "group leaders" or the like). These limitations not only apply to announcement of research results, but (often) deep details of the apparatus, that these days, can include software, applications, and perhaps computer environments (e.g., modifications to an OS, special OS drivers for specific hardware, etc.). Once it has been decided that something can be released, then it is -- equivalent to a NDA. Typically again under this sort of NDA, all of these details may be revealed to the funding agency/ies (those who "pay the bills") but the agency has agreed not to release this in public. In the USA, save for classified (weapons, clandestine services, etc.) material, those things developed by Federal Government agencies are "public". That was my meaning of NDA. On 3/5/21 4:02 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: At some point ... Yasha you are writing some very strange stuff. NDA collaboration contracts that exist for the various CERN/Fermilab experiments ... if your NDA stands for "non-disclosure ...", then I must say that I do not believe there are any secret agreements between experiments and linux vendors. We do have NDAs with hardware vendors for access to secret documentation and secret firmware source code, but I never heard of any special agreements with any Linux vendors. if you know something we do not know, please tell us more. ... Your observations on RHEL indicate that except for those who license RHEL for fee with an IBM RH support contract, RHEL is not an viable stable long-term (nor immediate) alternative. I must put it on record that I did not say any such thing. I say: a) RHEL8 is here and you can use it free of charge (16 free subscriptions) b) you can upgrade your CentOS-8 machine to RHEL8 with minimum trouble (I posted instructions on this list here) c) Red Hat made a serious mistake back in December by announcing "the end of CentOS as we know it" without providing (a) and (b) ahead of time d) by not providing 32-bit x86 and 32-bit ARM versions of RHEL they are at a severe disadvantage in places like a typical Physics lab (CentOS used to provide both, but they killed it). So there. There is nothing wrong with RHEL8. If it works for you, use it!
