On 28 Jan 2015, at 22:05, Ellis H. Wilson III <el...@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
> > So, the obvious answer here is, provide your "standard operating > environments" in the form of containerized/VM/whatever images quartiles 1 and > 2 can use, and allow quartiles 3 and 4 to spin up their own. Multiple > environments means quartile 2 can probably just try their program A on > environments X, Y, and Z, and find one that "just works." This reduces their > time futzing with compilers or fixing other researcher's crappy code that > breaks on GCC > 4.x. Quartile 3 can spin up their own absolutely crap > environment and think their L33t and not screw over their fellow researchers. > Quartiles 1 and 4 are basically untouched, since they were fine before as > now. > > Everybody wins, probably most of all the IT department. > > Best, > > ellis > I see using Docker/KVM etc. too eagerly as a universal “out” for problem situations a slippery slope: Instead of trying to figure out what the problem is and how to improve the environment/documentation/software stack, people are pointed to “roll their own”. In the long term this could result in the stagnation of the in-house software stack. I envision, in the worst case, a dystopia where user groups have re-invented the wheel with a custom stack with varying degrees of efficiency, probably on average much poorer than the highly optimized and user friendly in-house stack that could’ve been. That said, they definitely have a place in the ecosystem but I think it should not take too much away from trying to understand and educate even the quartile 3 users and develop a user-friendly and efficient software stack that could also cater to them. O-P _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
