Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: EL 8

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: comps, primary, other, filelists

On 2/21/20 7:36 AM, Ken Teh wrote: > I've been using the comps file to construct the packages list for my kickstart > installs, ignoring the other files (primary, other, and filelists) that are in > repodata folder. > > Can someone explain what the other files are and if I need to review them for

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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. > > > >

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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 <

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

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

RE: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

RE: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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.

Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?

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

comps, primary, other, filelists

I've been using the comps file to construct the packages list for my kickstart installs, ignoring the other files (primary, other, and filelists) that are in repodata folder. Can someone explain what the other files are and if I need to review them for "other" packages? I notice that for