> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Jeff Templon wrote:
>
>>The idea is to make "name" the thing you really care about. I chose to go
>>with Rod Walker's suggestion -- ELC for Enterprise Linux Compatible.
Just finished reading the thread - ehm, does anybody *really* care
about the OS flavour? What I care is whether my runtime environment
is installed and validated there. How many users ship their binaries
to the job these days? 27 Alice VO members? ;-)
Also, are you guys going to discuss this "standartization" every
time a new OS pops up? How are you going to propagate your decisions
to the unfortunate owners of the newcoming system? And worse even,
to the hoards of users who are presumably going to specify it in
their JDLs? By releasing a daily digest of known OSes?
Oh, and why nobody mentioned kernels yet?
My point is: why bother? Name of OS, and even the release nr,
carries very little information, and does not guarantee binary
compatibility anyway. Better not to rely on it at all.
O "what's in a name?" S
PS shall we discuss CPU type tags?..
|