mahout-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas Kolegraff <>
Subject Re: Re: Mahout + BigDataR Linux
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 01:58:07 GMT
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Kolegraff <
> > wrote:
> > ... I have this crazy notion that nothing should ever be installed and
> > bootstrapping is really annoying.
> >

Disclaimer: I'm not one of these "install everything from source and you
should be the package manager of your system" people ... that is silly,
good luck building a model around that.
For the record: I actually like Yum and apt-get.

> This opinion is more and more in the minority.  Yum and apt have made this
> much less painful.  And saving an AMI after doing that is nearly painless
> (for EBS based boots).
> I don't know of *any* major place that works without packages.  Many places
> build images for fast installation, but the entire mindset is around
> packages.

Regarding these comments: Valid.
Fast installation and extreme stability are very key, over versatility.
It seemed the image was the best route for these key objectives.
For the short term I'm more concerned the examples I build against the
system are *totally* stable and work well, although this doesn't further
justify distro over package repo.

However, I can still see the same comeback.
So? again, why not just use packages
Meh, perhaps I provide both.

> I felt it was easier to just launch an AMI.....yet again, why not just
> > repackage another image.
> >
> Indeed.  Why not provide packages and an AMI.  Remember that if you want to
> provide an AMI, you pretty much have to make 12 of them.
> > The automated build nature of what I do requires me to repackage some
> lower
> > level libraries so they can link easily and stably (is that a word?)
> across
> > multiple packages.
> >
> So?
> If you have this need, then others will as well.  They will find a complete
> distro unusable.
> > I also have some longer term objectives that will require me to have
> > complete control over the kernel and packaging.
> > It just seemed easier to start my own thing for this.
> >
> I suppose it depends on your goals.  Announcing this publicly implies that
> you are interested in having others use it.

Not so much 'use' but rather 'try'.

But building a distro for your
> private needs that conflict with other peoples' private needs says just the
> opposite.

I think this makes some assumptions around needs.  That being said, I owe
some usage examples. noted.
Although, I think I see where you are coming from here.  The distro
supports a longer term objective, but, that is rather irrelevant since the
short-term needs of others are probably focused on packages, thus, creating
this usability paradox [y/n]?

Agree, this could prove insane.  If that is the case, it wouldn't be *too*
> > hard for me to convert this to some package repo
> >
> Probably not insane.  Probably just isn't entirely consistent in action and
> intent.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message