On 09/01/14 22:53, jdow wrote:
> Ian, I suspect the SL staff position is more proper engineering with
> it's concern about what could possibly go wrong than it is about
> minimizing their work or compromising their main sponsor's needs. I
> suspect that the SL staff position is also tempered with a healthy
> dose of, "What do our customers want and need?"
I didn't suggest otherwise. However, I could have sworn I read somewhere
that Red Hat would stop release their source as SRPMs (which would have
a direct impact on the build process of SL I assume), but I can't find
that now. Maybe I mis-read that. I'll keep looking.

>
> The main SL customers are their sponsers, Fermilab and Cern. They do
> not need the latest and greatest. They need stable support for "what
> we already have for as long as practical."

I thought core CentOS would still track Red Hat in releases and support
lengths. If I have that wrong, then that does throw a spanner in the works.
>
> All the other SL customers, such as you and I, don't matter a hill of
> beans against the billion dollar investments of their sponsors. I am
> sitting back and watching. I certainly respect their work, appreciate
> their work, and admittedly sponge off their work. So I'd not dream of
> trying to tell them what to do.
I wouldn't dream of telling them what to do either. All I am doing here
is chewing the cud, as it were.

FWIW, I don't feel link I sponge... I merely drink from the same open
source cup that SL and Red Hat does. I have a few lines of code accepted
in the Xen project; does that mean all Xen users (4.3+) are sponging off
me? I don't think so.


>
> I do note that for the machine on which I use SL it is precisely the
> sort of thing I want, too.
>
> {^_^}   Joanne Dow
>
> On 2014/01/09 14:30, Ian Murray wrote:
>> On 09/01/14 21:12, William R. Somsky wrote:
>>> One thing people should keep in mind while discussing this is the why
>>> the original Fermilab distro (and Cern distro) which then became
>>> Scientific Linux was created, and why Fermilab continues to actively
>>> commit resources to SL. Remember Fermilab (and Cern) are particle
>>> accelerator facilities with million/billion dollar experiments that
>>> *must* have long-term guarantees of stable and supported software.
>>>
>>> To make Scientific Linux a variant of Centos would be to introduce an
>>> unknown/uncontrollable element as a controlling factor in the mix.
>>> What if Centos pulled an Ubuntu and decided to start introducing
>>> controversial changes in an attempt to become more "user friendly" or
>>> to "win the desktop"?
>>>
>>> A merging w/ Centos would need to carefully consider such issues.
>> I don't come from a scientific background, just more of a piggy-backer
>> on what seems to be a well governed and reliably supported operating
>> system. An O/S with some big names behind it, such as they ones you
>> mentioned above. I was a longterm CentOS user until it became clear that
>> there was surprising little opaqueness around the governance and
>> processes of the project and it seemed overly reliant on one or two
>> individuals. Despite it being having a huge userbase, I came to the
>> conclusion that this was largely a vanity project for those individuals.
>>
>> Now, the Red Hat news has completely changed that situation. So for me,
>> CentOS is now viable again.
>>
>> To answer your concern, directly:-
>>
>> "To make Scientific Linux a variant of Centos would be to introduce an
>> unknown/uncontrollable element as a controlling factor in the mix."
>>
>> Scientific Linux is already based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so in
>> that sense you are not introducing any new element, in my opinion. The
>> press release talks about Special Interest Groups and official variants.
>> Now if SL was to become an official variant, then part of the acceptance
>> of the SIG from the Scientific side could be to get confirmation that
>> ongoing support would suit the needs you speak of.
>>
>> Something else worth remember that I seem to recall reading on this list
>> that a discussion had taken place sometime ago about a possible merger
>> between CentOS and SL (or at least a common base). The wording in the
>> list that I recall was that "the conclusion was that both projects goals
>> were too different". Obviously, that is wide open to exact
>> interpretation. Those differences may now be reconcilable or even moot.
>>
>> Having said all that, it would be a shame for the (now) only significant
>> independent RHEL rebuild project to lose its independence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 01/08/14 11:53, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>>> We are in the process of researching/evaluating this news and how it
>>>> impacts Scientific Linux.
>>>>
>>>> -Connie Sieh
>>>>
>>