"Scientific Linux was never simply "RHEL with a different wallpaper." It gave the scientific community an institutionally independent implementation of the Enterprise Linux platform."
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.
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 Having used a fork of scientific Linux, this was a huge pain because of outdated openSSL packages.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.
I suspect that at the time they had to make a decision, Rocky Linux was not in good enough state, so they went with Debian, and now they already standardized around Debian, so no need to change.
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.
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.
Any proof?
"Scientific Linux was never simply "RHEL with a different wallpaper." It gave the scientific community an institutionally independent implementation of the Enterprise Linux platform."
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.
Urgh. Thanks for saving me a click.
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 Having used a fork of scientific Linux, this was a huge pain because of outdated openSSL packages.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.
Well they could have used Debian from the start. I get why, but it's such a strange argument, the way it's posited.
Sad that the author chose to generate slop instead of writing an article about SL
I didn’t comment much on this whole topic but what I wondered is: why not Rocky Linux?
It’s quite literally the modern day CentOS
I suspect that at the time they had to make a decision, Rocky Linux was not in good enough state, so they went with Debian, and now they already standardized around Debian, so no need to change.
> AlmaLinux and RHEL remain the main supported Linux distributions across much of the organization
Alma and Rocky provide almost the same thing.