Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

news.fnal.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#101

Post by jl6 »

sllabres wrote: post #61
jl6 wrote: post #56

I’m out of the loop on RHEL forks. Can someone explain why it is important to be binary compatible with RHEL? Is there a lot of software whose binaries will only run on RHEL? Or is this more a case of wanting something free that can still make use of RHEL-specific skills and knowledge?

As soon as you use something like SAP or Oracle the number of offically _supported_ distributions quickly decreases. As example SAP HANA: RHEL and SLES or for example Oracle Database: RHEL, OEL (based on RHEL AFAIK) and again SLES. So it is not only a question if it would theoretically/technically fail on another platform.

I don’t imagine SAP certification would extend to a community-supported fork of RHEL even if it was a 1:1 clone.

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#102

Post by jl6 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #93
Symmetry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was working for the US government we had to obey rules against shipping "freeware," which RHEL wasn't because we payed for it. But it was cheaper and easier to do most of our development on CentOS systems and because the software was the same we weren't worried about compatibility issues.

> we had to obey rules against shipping "freeware" I am in the USA but this is new to me.. can you say more or better, links? regarding science applications, specifically...

I’ve worked at orgs where the problem with freeware wasn’t the lack of cost, but the lack of support/indemnity/assurance and the lack of a contract to establish a legal framework for the dependency.

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#103

Post by Mikhail_K »

ilyt wrote: post #89
rahen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do your homework. This has caused enough wars, hatred, threats, splits and forks already over the years.

I mean if you look at it from that perspective systemd problem seems to be "incompetent people don't like it" We got group of clowns that repeat stuff like "but sysV is simple, init scripts are simple to make" and we have (...had, after migrating off) thousands of lines of init script fixes to prove that they are not that simple to get right, all replaced by few lines of system. Then there is another group of clowns…

It is misleading to point to sysvinit failures while arguing in favour of systemd, because the latter is not the only alternative to the former.

As for the calling all opponents of systemd "incompetent", this is just plain bad faith.

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#104

Post by Mikhail_K »

rahen wrote: post #38
Mikhail_K wrote: post #21

Is AlmaLinux systemd-free?

You're asking if Redhat, the creator and main proponent of systemd, uses it in its distribution. Use FreeBSD, Devuan or Alpine if you want production-grade Unixes without systemd.

> You're asking if Redhat, the creator and main proponent of systemd, > uses it in its distribution.

I thought the main promoter of systemd these days is Microsoft?

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#105

Post by Mikhail_K »

flumpcakes wrote: post #80
rahen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do your homework. This has caused enough wars, hatred, threats, splits and forks already over the years.

> Do your homework. You assume I don't know what systemd is or why people have complained? This is frankly a rude comment to make and shows yourself in a very poor light. I thought it was pretty common knowledge in 2022 that systemd is fine . It's the default in the vast majority of Linux distros. The vast majority of people have gotten over the drama of change. I was asking for a specific reason why someone was comp…

> I thought it was pretty common knowledge in 2022 that systemd is fine.

You thought wrongly.

> The vast majority of people have gotten over the drama of change.

Implying the only reason to object to systemd is "the drama of change".

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#106

Post by mistrial9 »

jl6 wrote: post #102
mistrial9 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we had to obey rules against shipping "freeware" I am in the USA but this is new to me.. can you say more or better, links? regarding science applications, specifically...

I’ve worked at orgs where the problem with freeware wasn’t the lack of cost, but the lack of support/indemnity/assurance and the lack of a contract to establish a legal framework for the dependency.

ok- so if I understand those terms, roughly(?):

support --> contact system for humans to reach other humans with bugs or questions

indemnity --> a legal statement by the vendor that the client is not responsible for long term liability for patents or legal challenges

assurance --> a legal statement that the vendor will take responsibility if the product is not what it appears to be, or is missing parts that are required to fit a purpose

establish a legal framework --> define the copyrights and governing law for rights, responsibilities and disputes between the vendor, their suppliers, the customer and their agents

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#107

Post by realgmk »

Conan_Kudo wrote: post #77
dapozza wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Rocky is done by the guy that started CentOS.

Strictly speaking, Greg Kurtzer didn't start CentOS. He started cAos, and people within cAos started CentOS to bootstrap cAos. When the CentOS and cAos people couldn't get along, CentOS left cAos to be its own thing. Lance Davis probably has more claim to being the founder than Greg Kurtzer, as he was the one that started actually creating the Red Hat Linux rebuild work the led to CentOS.

Rocky McGaugh started building cAos-EL under the cAos Foundation which I created and led.

Due to my role with the cAos Foundation, I was part of the planning, inception, architecture, setup, leadership, management and led the project itself, but Rocky did 99% of the engineering work for cAos-EL-2 (later renamed to CentOS-3) and after Rocky was working on that, John Newbigin started on what would become CentOS-2.

Lance was there since the early days of the cAos Foundation, and he suggested the name "CentOS" (and he squatted and held the domain from the Foundation, which was how he took over the project), and he got involved with engineering/development of CentOS-3 after Rocky passed away. While I would agree, he is a co-founder, he proved to be opportunistic and acted very unethically and has been further demonstrated with the open letter sent to him from Russ Herrold (another co-founder) and the rest of the CentOS contributors for going AWOL, still holding the domain, and taking the project donations for years.

CentOS split off from the cAos Foundation (501c3) due to Lance's stronghold on the domain. To be clear, the separation was not mutual but it was cordial and sugar coated for the good of the project. I always enjoyed being part of CentOS and working on Linux distributions so not being part of CentOS was hard on me. This is one of the reasons why I announced a new distribution (Rocky) within 2 hours of CentOS being killed off, I was excited to do a distribution again! You can also imagine how and why I setup the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation different from the cAos Foundation to better protect the project(s).

One last point, just because I wasn't working on core engineering and development of CentOS doesn't mean I wasn't deeply involved for the first years of CentOS and not a reason to discredit my role as project leader and co-founder.

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#108

Post by ustrin »

worthless-trash wrote: post #66
ustrin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that Cent 8/9 Stream has quicker critical CVE patches because it's essentially the source and is closer to mirroring RHEL. This isn't entirely true, at least for embargoed CVEs (so the most critical vulnerabilities). RHEL will always get embargoed patches first. Once RHEL releases the patched packages, Alma/Rocky can rebuild them too. The patches may not be available in Stream yet at this point. This…

Hello fellow redhatter in the kernel engineering group ;)

Actually, I'm closer to the OP than to Red Hat, but I've heard this point explained often enough :P

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#109

Post by realgmk »

liamnal wrote: post #95
bclemens wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Gregory Kurtzer personally helped in development (primarily the packaging / tools during 8.3 and then 8.4). I know, I was there lol. For example, see the commit log to the early set of Rocky Linux devtools: https://github.com/rocky-linux/devtools/commits/main?after=f... "All he does is talk" is unfairly dismissive. We all have our roles, and Greg's is not release engineering. The "taking credit" bit is an unfort…

>For example, see the commit log to the early set of Rocky Linux devtools And that's literally it. After that... Nothing. Not surprising. >"All he does is talk" is unfairly dismissive. Funny because he's the only one ever mentioned or talked to in any article. It'd be nice to hear from the actual developers and not a figure head. Notice how it's only him? His role is to talk. His other company is also there to take c…

I do try to ensure that others are always getting credit, I'm not even mentioned in the release notes of who did the work.

And the board doesn't keep people out. If you read the bylaws and charter, you would know that it is all contributing members of the projects that will vote for the board members, and the board will elect the officers of the organization.

You are obviously not an RESF Member and I trust the Members of the projects to make the best decision for the RESF and Projects. If I am among them, cool, I will always do my best job there. If not, I will support the decision and enjoy knowing that the structure that I helped to create, is working, and will keep the project open, free, and in the community for decades to come.

Last point, it isn't cool to discredit non-technical contributions, every role in an open source project is important.

Re: Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution

#110

Post by amelius »

acatton wrote: post #67
amelius wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you grow your system, or do you suggest that you build your system as a bunch of microservices running inside containers?

What do you mean growing your system? “How do you run more service?” Or “how do you handle more traffic?” Or “how do you handle more complexity of the application?” All of these can be handled with any or many of VM images, containers, home-built packages and configuration-management tools. If you're following the latest trend, you just run VM based on an image with pre-installed kubernetes. Want to run more services…

How do you share shared-object files between executables running in different containers? (Both on disk and in memory)
Post reply on HN