On 07/05/08 14:01, Andy Buckley wrote: > Jan Iven wrote: >> On 06/05/08 18:38, Andy Buckley wrote: [..] >> 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). (lets not forget the RedHat-6/7 "seep" with the more physicist physicists - "128M are enough for anybody, whats wrong with FORTRAN66, and my old X-Terminal never had sound issues...") > 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, and easier > portability between major releases of SL, but the enforced SL domination > means that this often isn't done. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of portable software (and would encourage developers / release managers to build&test on a zoo of platforms [more so since I don't develop a lot myself :-) ]). My point was purely from a support perspective - I definitively don't want to troubleshoot marginal one-off issues due to somebody's failed download of the über-geek PPC slackware update from some shady 3rd-party repository.. And right now it doesn't look like we have a clear winner for a "supportable" laptop/desktop Linux in our community.. Regards jan