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 ;) >