RE: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?
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 If Scientific Linux is no longer maintained by Fermilab, a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 hapless
consumers. We are part of the global target, but we are
unlikely to attract specific attention from the bad guys.
And
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 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?
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 >
Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?
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: EL 8
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:02 PM Mark Rousell wrote: > > On 03/02/2020 21:39, Stephan Wiesand wrote: > > On 3. Feb 2020, at 22:23, ONeal, Miles > <0be99a30c213-dmarc-requ...@listserv.fnal.gov> wrote: > > And there's no real reason to get the source from anywhere but RHEL, since > it's freely available. It depends on the license and the software. The git repositories for almost everything over at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.centos.org_=DwIFaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=li4TL3fJXPhFZO5hKHkbW_zPyiqlCuGL7H8FmH4nY3U=1DfKpzfAoaLWSYGuZjVUWDEfs-kh9u_MMx3Aakq6mf0= > Care to share a pointer to the freely available SRPM for one of today's > updates, like gnome-settings-daemon-3.28.1-3.el7_6.src.rpm? > I can't speak for the specific update you mention but in order to get Red Hat > source all you need is legitimate access to it. One can of course buy a Red > Hat licence (presumably Oracle can afford this) but access to the source code > is also freely available. Just sign up for a Red Hat dev licence and, as per > GPL requirements, you get access to the source RPMs (in a 9.8GB ISO). It's why I keep active RHEL licenses, and publish tools at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_nkadel_nkadel-2Drsync-2Dscripts=DwIFaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A=li4TL3fJXPhFZO5hKHkbW_zPyiqlCuGL7H8FmH4nY3U=AGgZirGFOKxjaBNo1BgsZqG5kzZ8TN-wxAc6HjrBhwQ= to maintain an internal reposync mirror. I use them for building tools with "mock". and for picking apart dependencies for other tools like, say, Samba backports with full AD controllers enabled on. There have been cases where It lets me use the local mirror on my RHEL systems for debugging the build process. I also published tools for mirroring CentOS and Scientific Linux there, for building similar internal mirrors and keeping my update or kickstart cluster builds the upstream servers. > The dev licence limits you to running Red Hat for development and test > purposes as I recall but, as I understand it (I am not a lawyer), none of > that prevents you from exercising your GPL rights with the source code. Please, you actually need to check them. it *depends on the package*. Almost all python modules are python licensed, httpd and tomcat are apache licensed, it really does depend.. > Naturally, certain parts of all that code and associated files contain Red > Hat's trademarked intellectual property and branding which is not covered by > GPL, so if one wishes to redistribute the code then one has the easy little > job of removing all the IP/branding first. ;-) Pleae, please, check the individual package licenses for your own protection! I've had the experience of catching an engineer publishing software on Github that he'd filed the BSD notices off of, and I was *very* glad that I'd made him turn over his git history before we published.
