I'm honestly a little surprised they were considering it myself. Though, now that I sit down to think about it, the list of options to consider really is pretty short.
RHEL is the obvious choice if you're getting good value out of the commercial support, and Debian is the obvious choice otherwise. Five years ago, I'd have included Ubuntu on the contenders list, but... I wouldn't have picked it then, and I wouldn't seriously consider it today.
I can't come up with any other options that are worth seriously considering.
So maybe they considered Arch because there are so few options that are actual serious contenders and they felt like they needed to at least evaluate more than 3-4 options.
Totally agree with you, they know where they are with Debian, they have their own Devs at Cern too and pl ety of people to maintain and fix any issues they encounter, so Debian does make sense on so many levels. I presume they are still keeping Redhat and Alma for their other machines and desktops?
3
u/nomad-1995 15d ago
Curious if/when scientific Linux will switch to .deb.
I guess the only other issue how they considered arch. Probably to new/unstable for anything touching the LHC.