CERN's move to Debian for accelerator control systems is a reminder that Scientific Linux was worth more than the small team required to maintain it.

77 points•elashri•8 days ago•56 comments•

56 comments

forgotpwd168 days ago
Article quite a mess and, honestly, largely devoid of content. For starters, complains that SL should've continued because other community options might eventually be discontinued/change (as happened with CentOS). Like, duh. By this reasoning every effort should be duplicated to guard against the possibility that one option might disappear. In the end though all those RHEL rebuilds depend on Red Hat maintaining RHEL. The article never notes this and indirectly equalizes the effort and existence of a a genuinely independent community-driven distro (Debian, that CERN decided to move their accelerator-control computers) and RHEL rebuild (e.g., AlmaLinux, that CERN will keep the rest of infrastructure on, e.g. data centers, compute farms, etc). And here's the misguided part. If SL as still active it'll have been necessary to recompile numerous upstream RHEL source packages to remove the microarchitecture restrictions. This will've turned SL to entire new, independently maintained distro. The thing they wanted to avoid.
ghaff8 days ago
Well, it's not an unreasonable assumption that RHEL will continue to be maintained even if we don't go down the whole CentOS path which I won't on a public forum. But, yes, there are always dependencies. There's certainly no guarantees that any of the ~rebuilds will still be around in n years.
lhd18 days ago
lo and behold, a 1000 word sample comes back in Pangram as AI generated. This should not be worth anyone's time (and maybe you have spent more time on your comment than the author did in their blogpost).
applfanboysbgon8 days ago
> author

prompter*

exploderate8 days ago
Thanks, this was much more insightful and on topic, than the complains about llm usage in the article.
darkwi11ow8 days ago
Scientific Linux was great! Sad to see the blog in its memory having so much llm-speak. I hope one day writing without llm will become a trend.
sevg8 days ago
Yeah but it seems to be a losing battle, sadly.

Low effort LLM-written content gets upvoted here anyway, despite the writer having little respect for peoples’ time.

BoxOfRain8 days ago
I'm surprised it doesn't annoy the author. I use LLMs extensively for code but I cannot stand their natural language output a lot of the time, it always reminds me of that example from Orwell's Politics and the English Language:

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

> I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern [1946] English:

> Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

A 2026 version of this phenomenon would instead be:

> Here's the thing: success isn't just about talent — it's about timing. The fastest runner doesn't always win. The strongest army doesn't always prevail. Ultimately, life is a complex interplay of skill and chance, and recognizing that can be both humbling and empowering.

That's actually Claude and you can see precisely why the resulting vague language is bad; the LLM has changed the actual meaning of the passage from a sober reflection on the futility of expecting natural justice from the universe to one that emphasises skill and timing, exactly what the author is telling us is futile.

Admittedly the slop text LLMs produce in the 21st century isn't the same as the 20th century slop humans produced, but there's definitely a family resemblance in my view! Orwell was concerned with the idea language can be used to curtail thought, and he disliked what we'd now call slop because it merely gestures at a thought without actually instantiating it directly.

The whole essay is worth a read in my view, it remains highly relevant.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

dynm8 days ago
People are asking for evidence. FWIW, pangram classifies this post as 97% AI, 3% human.
trwhite8 days ago
Any proof?
bayindirh8 days ago
Subsection titles, and how the text flows. When I read these kinds of LLM-Powered posts, I feel the same thing. Like remembering the taste of some canned food which was not great, but I had to consume to stay alive. It feels like junk food, not optimized to taste great, but doesn't reek of machine oil either. A price-optimized, slightly unhealthy substance which is somewhat compatible with my body because of food engineering magic.

These posts are not only a waste of time, but it also makes me feel deceived and betrayed. Why this is important? Because it's the honest take and bears the load of the reality of the post.

Please, don't make me read something you didn't write.

Disclosure: This post, incl. llm-sounding paragraph is typed by a human. All of the keystrokes are 100% human and made possibe by burning ATPs and firing tiny lightning bolts across some brain cells. No humans are harmed or GPU hours are burned in this comment.

Total water consumption: 50ml of cold spring water, because I'm thirsty.

Geezus_428 days ago
Why would a person use RHEL in the first paragraph, making the assumption that people already know what that means. Then a few paragraphs later, write the full name?

Theoretically a mistake a person could make, but it feels a bit unlikely in this context to me.

Also, the repeating pattern of Prompt:List through multiple paragraphs.

PapstJL4U8 days ago
Headlines, that are sentences

Headline that goes "A was this" and next headline "Then b was that".

IshKebab8 days ago
You obviously can't get proof. But there are enough stylistic tells to confidently say that AI was substantially involved in writing this. It's annoying to read. That's enough to dislike AI writing IMO.
satnhak8 days ago
"Scientific Linux was never simply "RHEL with a different wallpaper." It gave the scientific community an institutionally independent implementation of the Enterprise Linux platform."
GlacierFox8 days ago
Urgh. Thanks for saving me a click.
consp8 days ago
After two alineas I was fully convinced it was llm slop and the message it might have intended to pass is completely lost.
_joel8 days ago
Well they could have used Debian from the start. I get why, but it's such a strange argument, the way it's posited.
bayindirh8 days ago
If I remember correctly, the reason why Scientific Linux was RHEL based instead of Debian because RedHat was a company and can pay them for services.

We used to run it on our Grid nodes, and while it was not bad, it was not that smooth, either. It was a little kludgy but worked if you didn't diverge from the happy paths much.

Now Debian has Extended Long Time Support via Freexian, I believe CERN has enough confidence to use Debian instead of RH family, and that will make lives of some people way easier. Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.

_flux8 days ago
> Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.

I realize I'm veering a bit off-topic :), but I've used Debian for a long while, but I do wonder how is that deb is more sophisticated than rpm?

The one feature I remember (a long time ago) rpm being able to install the different versions of the same package, although I suppose this in practice would only work for packages made for this, and libraries would usually be such packages. With debs this means the version number needs to be embedded to the package name with some developer-chosen precision.

guenthert8 days ago
> .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.

Perhaps. I wouldn't argue either way, but dpkg still maintains its "data base" of installed and available packages/files as plain text files rather than using a DB format like sqlite (which one might chose for such today) or Berkeley DB (back when). The performance difference is negligible today on fast hosts with NVMe backed storage, but fairly annoying when using lesser machines with slower storage, e.g. RPi with root fs on a SD card.

_joel8 days ago
Yea, long time user of both here (I even supported ATLAS workloads running on our public UK cloud). Debian long-term is the right choice
PunchyHamster8 days ago
You can pay companies just fine to support Debian.

> Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.

It's so bad. Coming back to RHEL (new client requirement) after sitting mostly on Debian for years is such a bizzare experience.

You want to install a PostgreSQL database, it doesn't even initialize it, you need to manually do DB init and the rest of the dance.

You want to run DRBD, sorry, we didn't bother to pick that kernel compile option, you can add extra repository for that. But hey, it's the kernel module, which means now you have to enroll cert in Secureboot, and that requires actual KVM access to the VM for someone to confirm it so now I'm on meeting with customer's IT just so they click some buttons in VM's boot process.

Even some common utilities are not in main repos but need EPEL

intoXbox8 days ago
The benefits of SL described are pretty handwaivy to me. Having used a fork of scientific Linux, this was a huge pain because of outdated openSSL packages. Now you could argue this deserves being maintained separately, but I think it makes total sense to use the security- benefits of long term distros and only modify the parts required for reproducible scientific work.

I was really glad when the vendor started unofficially supporting OpenSuse so I could finally use git on these distros.

PunchyHamster8 days ago
They are. Debian + additional repo with scientific packages would be far more preferable for anyone involved.
tempay8 days ago
I think the premise of this article is wrong. Scientific Linux was important once upon a time but these days with userspace containers there is no need for the same level of homogeneity. In practice everyone is using Apptainer on machines that don’t have a singular purpose.
j1mc8 days ago
Userspace containers don’t provide the level of reproducibility that is required for a scientific experiment, though.
tempay7 days ago
That needs a citation. I’m not aware of anyone doing anything more than containers. For older experiments VMs have been used but that’s a legacy thing that predates containerisation and isn’t driven by reproducibility.
Dinux8 days ago
Thats literally what the author descirbes. Its about the cost of infra and making choices, not to go back

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories