Cluster Poll Results (tangent into OS choices)

Mike Snitzer msnitzer at
Mon Nov 3 18:51:41 EST 2003

On Fri, Oct 31 2003 at 13:37,
Wei Deng <weideng at> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 02:44:59PM -0500, Vann H. Walke wrote:
> > - OSCAR / Rocks / etc...  - generally installed on top of another
> > distribution.  We still have to pick a base distribution.
> From what I heard from Rocks mailing list, they will release 3.1.0 the 
> next Month, which will be based on RHEL 3.0, compiled from source code 
> that is publicly available, and free of charge.

Rebuilding RHEL3 into a freebie-ripoff version doesn't pass the smile-test
for corporations trying to coexist and actually work with Red Hat.  Why
not focus that questionable rebuilding effort on a more worthwhile task?
E.g. porting Fedora Core to support amd64, ia64, etc; adding features to
Fedora Core that are relevant to clustering, etc.

> Even though Rocks is based on RedHat distribution, it is complete, which 
> means you only need to download Rocks ISOs to accomplish your 
> installation.

All well and good, but basing a "complete" clustering solution on a reverse
engineered RHEL is completely underhanded and wrong (regardless of whether
you feel RH is being greedy or whatever).  Ripping off RHEL is a pretty
cheap contribution to the advancement of free clustering technology.  But
maybe this type of thing gets peoples' ROCKS off?


(these views are my own; I just happen to work for a clustering company ;)

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

More information about the Beowulf mailing list