Andy Buckley wrote:
> Jan Iven wrote:
>> On 06/05/08 18:38, Andy Buckley wrote:
>>> Troy Dawson wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Ubuntu Creep
>>>>  - We ran out of time for this.
>>> Oh well! Does anyone have any comments to make online?
>> From my perspective, what matters with SL(C) is the validation of
>> experiment software, and the (current) assumption at CERN that desktop
>> == public interactive cluster == batch service == grid (i.e. HEP-wide
>> compatibility).
> 
> In my opinion, the homogenisation of HEP batch services has been a
> double-edged sword. On one side, it has definitely made the above
> assumption valid, which is nice for non-technical users (except that
> their desktop functionality is then limited to that of a 3 year old
> batch/Grid node... hence the Ubuntu/Fedora creep among more techie
> physicists).
> 
> But simultaneously, the single supported target platform has led to
> non-portable experiment software and LCG middleware. My experience is
> that *having* to ensure portability results in better code,

I completely agree on that one.

> and easier
> portability between major releases of SL, but the enforced SL domination
> means that this often isn't done.

Unfortunately true. But who has the resources to provide

- sufficient capacity to run enough jobs to certify other OSes, 
compilers, libs,...

- enough manpower to make the HEP code portable

- enough manpower to run and analyze the test jobs

The current mono-culture is a danger for the code quality, but I see no 
way out :(

> 
> So I (tacitly, but actively) welcome Ubuntu (and everything else*)
> creep, in the hope that it might lead to better software!

You are optimistic.

Matthias

> 
> And that's *my* $0.02 ;)
> Andy
> 
> * Except Windows ;)
>