Redhat Fedora

Bob Drzyzgula bob at
Fri Sep 26 15:43:51 EDT 2003

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.

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

More information about the Beowulf mailing list