All members of the SL user community (including systems users, not just 
endusers) should be very thankful to Jarek for his clear candor.

 From Jarek:

I am speaking for SLC here: no: we are going to use CentOS.

End quote.

At this point, unless Fermilab is planning something else, it appears 
that SL fundamentally is "dead".  SL is going to be CentOS, so the SL 
non-CERN community might as well switch to CentOS or to license "real" 
Red Hat EL for fee.  CERN is no longer willing to invest the resources 
(human and "machine") to support a separate distro.  Does Fermilab have 
the resources to "go it alone"?  SLC evidently will be CentOS with 
specific additional hardware drivers and software applications to meet 
the needs of the CERN LHC collaborations, including running the LHC 
detectors and data reduction and analysis environment.

The second point also is in this quote from Jarek:

Speaking for SLC here: yes, we could do it (so could SL and anybody 
else), but please note: this does not change anything for everybody else 
on this list: if somebody decides to distrust Red Hat and CentOS ... why 
would that person trust us ? ...

End quote.

Unless the SRPMs distributed by Red Hat are a misrepresentation, a build 
from these SRPMs should yield RPMs that are identical (bit for bit, 
e.g., under a real binary compare) to the installable RPMs provided by 
Red Hat.  Once this is verified, one knows that a build of SL derived 
from these SRPMs in fact will be a functionally faithful clone of RHEL 
(specific release and versions in the SRPMs -- functionally faithful 
because the actual logos, etc., will be different).  Red Hat is a for 
profit corporation, providing source, etc., back to the not-for-profit 
community only because of a marketing model and/or GPL, etc., 
restrictive covenants (licenses).  However, the for-profit competitors 
of Red Hat, notably Oracle, are using RHEL source to build a competitor 
linux distro that Oracle evidently distributes without fee.  Thus,
Red Hat now is using CentOS.  Will CentOS be a faithful copy of RHEL?  I 
personally fear that it will not be to stymie Oracle and the like.  The 
git, etc., mechanism that Red Hat is using presents no obstacle to "deep 
pocket" ("well capitalized") for-profits such as Oracle, but only an 
inconvenience.  Thus, this model only will work if CentOS lacks some 
vital feature, or else Red Hat has elected this path for no clear reason.

However, if CERN and/or Fermilab actually do compare the CentOS git to 
the real Red Hat EL SRPMs -- a tedious task unless it can be automated 
-- there is no reason in my opinion not to trust the CentOS "EL" 
source.  I do trust that CERN and/or Fermilab personnel will do an 
honest compare.

I am not being paranoid -- I am simply applying the way for-profit USA 
corporations (such as Red Hat, Oracle, Microsoft, and many others) 
operate -- and this operation is not in the interest of the commons.  
[Aside:  The closest I have found to such a USA corporation recently 
operating in the interest of the commons is the apparent promise of 
Tesla (electric battery automobiles) to release the fundamental energy 
storage and propulsion technology it uses to competitors at no charge.  
However, Tesla corporation seems to be the rare exception, not the 
rule.]  Please pardon any statements of societal philosophy -- the 
practical question is very simple:  can we bet the farm that the new 
CentOS "SL" will be a reliable production system in a hostile (under 
attack) environment?  If I understand Jarek, CERN is so betting, 
presumably to save the cost of RHEL 7 licensing to the governments (and 
perhaps private philanthropy at some of the universities participating 
in the CERN LHC collaborations) that are funding the experiments.

Yasha Karant

On 06/30/2014 11:54 PM, Jarek Polok wrote:
> Dear Yasha
>
> [...]
>
>>  From a query I posted on this matter to the SL list:
>>
>> 2.  Evidently, Singh and other "core" CentOS team members actually are
>> Red Hat employees,
>> just as the core SL team have been Fermilab or CERN employees
>> (presumably in some cases
>> actually paid by the research collaborations funded by various
>> government agencies through
>> various universities -- e.g., in the USA, NSF or DOE with each PI
>> typically holding a
>> tenure-stream faculty position at a university).  Will the core SL team
>> or the core CERN linux
>> team likewise become Red Hat employees?
> CERN linux team is and will be CERN employees: Our only relationship
> with Red Hat is that we are customers. To clarify little bit: Our
> primary mission at CERN is to provide support for linux platform for
> our customers - experiments and working groups - not to build linux
> distribution. (yes - we did it in last 10 years since in 2004
> this was the "only" option)
>
>> End question.
>>
>> Are Jerek Polok et al. now Red Hat employees, or still CERN "employees"?
>>
> Yes we are CERN employees: the fact of using this or that linux version
> does not change it - why would it ?
>
>> Additional questions:
>>
>> A.  Will the SL/SLC source tree for RPM builds be a separate copy from
>> the CentOS git, downloaded therefrom?
> I am speaking for SLC here: no: we are going to use CentOS.
>
>> A.1  Will the SL/SLC source tree be compared to the original SRPMs that
>> CERN seems to have under license from Red Hat to verify
>> that the CentOS git source is in fact "unadulterated" RHEL 7 source,
>> other than for obvious Red Hat logos and the like?
>>
> Speaking for SLC here: yes, we could do it (so could SL and anybody
> else), but please note: this does not change anything for everybody else
> on this list: if somebody decides to distrust Red Hat and CentOS ... why
> would that person trust us ? ...
>
>
>> B.  Jarek states above:  Whatever the case, there will continue to exist
>> a linux of production quality and of free or affordable cost.
> That was actually a quote from Konstantin's post- but
> I fully agree with it.
>
>> What is
>> "affordable cost" and to what is this "cost" to be paid?  Red Hat?
>> CERN?  Fermilab (technically, the consortium responsible for operating
>> Fermilab as USA federally funded research facility) for USA-based
>> university sites using SL 7?
> For us at CERN the affordable cost is dedicating some
> resources (manpower/hardware/network bandwidth/ .. etc)
> towards support/maintenance (and development only if needed)
> of a freely distributable linux version matching our
> computing platform requirements.
>
> I do not fully understand your question about the cost
> to be paid I'm afraid:
>
> What is your current "cost" of using SL ?
>
> Why would that "cost" change if you use CentOS (or SL
> built with CentOS sources) ?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Jarek
>
> __
> -------------------------------------------------------
> _ Jaroslaw_Polok __________________ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
> _ http://cern.ch/~jpolok ________ tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
> _____________________________________ +41_76_487_9487 _
>