SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

December 2020

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 31 Dec 2020 11:02:24 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
On 12/31/20 12:05 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> ... It is difficult, but not impossible, to have a distro that does 
> not have computer science and engineering professionals ... doing the 
> implementation that is suitable for "hardened" production use, 
> including converting a distribution source into a functioning 
> alternately badged but otherwise identical "executable" distribution. 

In my opinion and for software that I will approve for use at $dayjob, 
developers doing "professional" release engineering and management for 
any software really should have solid software engineering backgrounds, 
not just computer science backgrounds. Since I do this sort of 
evaluation on a professional basis, I am using the ACM's definitions of 
those fields as defined in "Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview 
Report" as well as the individual, updated, curricula as found on the 
ACM's page at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.acm.org_education_curricula-2Drecommendations&d=DwIFAw&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A&m=J_y_RQ_m1wBDNa6puHIKs0qD-PVYaEuxw9yvER0cVXo&s=9h8AR-p_2yNK1ZunKeU1c78tSEzoHsVXrIyUejk4EVc&e=  .  
I do this sort of research for any high-value software, whether 
commercial or not, especially if there is a budget line item associated 
with it or if it is core infrastructure such as the primary server OS to 
run.

One reason I was so very comfortable with CentOS is that I've done my 
homework on the developers' professional backgrounds, which passed 
muster for my purposes; I was equally comfortable with Scientific Linux 
even before it was called that, but the larger base behind CentOS made 
the decision for me between those two, which I annually reviewed.  It 
helps a great deal that I've been acquainted with many of these folks 
(both CentOS and SL) for over 20 years, and have seen their track 
records.  And track records trump degrees and titles for my purposes.

Track records makes it all the more difficult for me to choose a CentOS 
Linux replacement today; even just counting the RHEL rebuilds, there is 
quite a bit of choice, between Oracle, Springdale, CloudLinux Project 
Lenix, Rocky, and even CentOS Stream.  The evaluation rubric is much 
larger now than it was when PUIAS, WhiteBox, and CentOS started.

In my over fifteen years experience here, primarily with CS interns, I 
have found that much of the time a computer science background alone is 
not enough; proper release engineering and management requires 
sub-disciplines that aren't necessarily found in the typical CS 
curriculum (learning such out-of-major disciplines is one goal of a good 
internship, in my opinion; the discipline of effectively and 
consistently using things like source code revision control, for 
instance).  Now, information systems or information technology 
backgrounds (again, using the ACM's definitions) can be highly useful 
toa project, mostly for process management and business alignment (on 
the IS side) or infrastructure management (on the IT side), but the core 
discipline needed for release management is SE.

> My observation about the paywall was simply that public archived 
> discussions are needed to trace back both proper attribution (even if 
> not for-fee property) as well as to verify the current state of any 
> particular implementation. 
In my opinion, requiring a login of any kind to access archives means 
the discussion isn't public by definition, even if anyone can join; many 
mailing lists even have a 'members-only' archive policy. I too have a 
bit of a problem with certain communications channels that seem to be 
very popular these days, but at the same time, in open source projects 
at least, the people who do the work should be able to choose the tools 
they use to do that work.  But, one of the side effects of this 
Instagram/SnapChat/Discord/Tiktok world is that the value of archives 
seems to not be fully appreciated (I won't elaborate here on how well I 
know this in terms of astronomy in general and radio astronomy in 
particular).
--
They say hindsight is 20/20;
I'm looking forward to 2020 becoming hindsight.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2