Redhat Fedora

adm35 at adm35 at
Fri Sep 26 22:03:26 EDT 2003

It just seems to me that the entire question is less than relevant for so 
many of us.  In many cases, we're *compelled* to use one particular 
distro over all others, because the researchers we support are using 
binary versions of applications that require a particular distro, which 
is frequently RedHat.  I actually discovered one today that REQUIRES 
RedHat 8 or better!!  You can all imagine that I was less than amused.

We generally use OSCAR on RedHat, but not for any particular political 
reason.  It works, and all of our applications run on it.  If we had the 
luxury of having ready access to the source code for all of our 
applications, we might look elsewhere....or we might not.

Some of you have the luxury of having all your programs created locally.  
I think many, perhaps most, of the rest of us do not.  As long as I 
remain at the mercy of software vendors for some percentage of our 
computational applications, I'll probably stay with RedHat, questionable 
policies or not.

Arnie Miles
Systems Administrator:  Advanced Research Computing
Adjunct Faculty:  Computer Science
168 Reiss Science Building

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Drzyzgula <bob at>
Date: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:43 pm
Subject: Re: Redhat Fedora

> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:53:12AM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:44:42PM -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
> > 
> > > Actually, I thought that in fact "we" tended to do a lot of
> > > this -- cf. Rocks, Clustermatic, Warewulf -- it's just that
> > > these never seem to capture the market in the same way that
> > > Red Hat always was.
> > 
> > Are any of these really "distributions", or are they "a minimal 
> set of
> > stuff overlaid on RedHat?" It makes sense to use a free and complete
> > conventional distro to build a cluster distro -- but now the free 
> and> complete distro is splitting into the less-reliable and less-
> fixed> distro (consumer) and the not-exactly-up-to-date distro 
> (enterprise),> which changes what we can do cheaply.
> Yes, on looking closer I see that you're right about the
> layering thing. I saw ISOs on those sites and hadn't looked
> more deeply.
> You're also right that the way out of this problem
> isn't clear. I suppose that if Fedora works out better
> than most of us are probably expecting, then there'd be
> hope there. It also occurs to me that it may make sense
> for the cluster community to consider something like a
> Cluster-Fedora subproject; perhaps we could come up with
> something that wasn't a cluster-somethingelsestartingwithf
> (sorry). Possibly Debian would be a better base in the
> long term, not that I'm particularly fond of Debian.
> Possibly, given that, as Erwan said, the CLIC contract
> is up in December 2003, perhaps it would make more sense
> for the community to pick that up as a starting point.
> But I suppose this is a bridge we'll have to cross when
> we come to it, especially since the bridge doesn't even
> seem to be fully built as yet.
> --Bob
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit 

Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

More information about the Beowulf mailing list