modules-interest — Discussion forum for modules usage.

Re: Why doesn't everyone use Modules ??

[<lv...@ca...>]

Let me add another perspective.  I work in an environment where we have
1500 SPARC workstations, literally hundreds of applications, etc.

Yet we don't use modules.

Why?  Because of inertia.

We have thousands of users - most of whom are quite inexperienced.
The system admins are working 50-60 hours a week already, just supporting
the current environment.  It's like Alice running in place as fast as she
can to stay in place.  To change things, or even just to start a new
with a new application, would take more time than they see benefits
on the return of investment.

What to do?  Here's some ideas.  Surely some of you use Linux, 4.4BSD,
FreeBSD or NetBSD.  Set up a Modules environment for your arena
using the default directory names as distributed with your OS.  Submit
it along with changes so that a new installation could make immediate
use of packages by use of the Modules.

Someone using Solaris build Module packages for each of the Solaris
install packages that are freely available, and talk to Ousterhout
to get him to promote the stuff inside of Sun as a cost savings to
the folk there.  Build a Solaris loadable package for Modules and submit
it to the freely distributable Solaris package archive.
Perhaps even share what you can of the various other packages that
have been built for common Solaris vendor packages like Frame, OpenWindows
X11R6, etc.  Oh - build some packages for the default Solaris 2.5 environment,
with a CDE package, SPARCworks, Java, etc.  Folks are going to start
moving to 2.5 faster and faster - if the environment is there, and advertised
as making it easier to upgrade, you will get their attention.
The easier it is for a system admin to 'plug and play' support for
things like Lotus, Excel, WABI, or whatever, the more likely they are
to use it - anything that makes their job easier is going to be considered.

HOWEVER - if Modules is seen as not being solid, as having weak points or
cause an increase in user problems, then you lose big time...
-- 
Larry W. Virden                 INET: lv...@ca...
<URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> is here! <*> O-
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.

Re: Why doesn't everyone use Modules ??

[J. P. <J....@Qu...>]

The venerable John Furlani <jl...@sa...> said;

> Comments or other ideas on how to get the word out is appreciated...

I would suggest going about it like this;

1) Establish a WWW presence - even if it is simply one or two HTML files
   in ftp://ftp.eng.auburn.edu/pub/Modules/

   Keep it simple, like brief outline and abstract. Short installation
   requirements and a link to the ftp directory and/or files themselves.
   Ensure it has essential keywords; system administration, large
   installations, etc. Whatever you think people might search for.
   Cross reference USENIX - http://www.usenix.org/

   Mention the fact that Cray are using it with UNICOS (in at least
   one installation anyway). I have access to a few Cray sites
   but only one is currently adopting it. The modulefiles have
   definitely been written by Cray and not local sysadmins.

2) Point a few of the more popular WWW search engines at your main URL.

3) Announce the WWW page & package on a few key newsgroups.
   Keep it down to a screen full.
 
   Suggest: comp.os.linux.announce    comp.lang.tcl
            comp.unix.large           comp.unix.cray
            comp.unix.shells (?)      

4) See if you can get it mentioned in some of the FAQ's.
   It *is* in the comp.lang.tcl FAQ but this isn't sufficient IMHO.
 
5) Get members on this list to spread the word to a few appropriate lists. 
   This might take some co-ordination to avoid undue spamming ;-)

6) Get a few of the main system-admin user groups to mention it
   on their Web pages, circulars, mailing lists etc.

7) Establish a hypermail type archive for this list.

After all that just watch the ftp log files and your mail box fill up !
Be prepared to field lots of questions and persude people to join this list.

That's how I'd do it anyway. Others may have better ideas though.
I can certainly help with a little of the above if needed.

John P.

Re: Why doesn't everyone use Modules ??

[<re...@me...>]

> From: "J. Pelan" <J....@Qu...>
> 
> I was recently made aware of the Modules package when Cray 
> adopted it for use with UNICOS and their mutifarious versions
> of compilers etc.

Cool.  I'm glad to see a vendor using it :-)

> I appears to be an extremely useful tool and one which I'm sure
> many people have thought about developing from time to time.
> Seeing as it is so good why aren't more people aware of it ?

Well, the main reason is that it fixes a problem which is mostly
peculiar to large sites: how to handle user environments with
lots of applications.  Most folks are stuck in either the PC
space (few applications, no concept of multiple users) or the
mainframe space (few applications, many users.)  They have yet
to tackle environments where you have heterogenous systems, 
many applications, many users and applications which change 
over time by adding new versions.  IMHO the latter is the most
important benefit of a Modules environment.

> It doesn't seem to have made an impact in any FAQ (like
> comp.unix.shells for example) and indeed it took me a while
> to find the Tcl implementation using AltaVista.

The primary vehicle has been USENIX and LISA conferences.  LISA 
is particularly important because that is the Large Installation
System Administration conference.

> So where's the catch ?? 

The catch is that a single user system, like most Linuxes, don't
really need Modules: it is extra overhead.  Most large sites are
either flailing, using Modules, using something else like Depot 
or rolled their own.

The big question is: "what does the future hold?"  I've been 
mentally struggling with this for some time.  There was a time 
when a univeral GUI like CDE would be the answer.  With CDE there
is enough administrative flexibility to solve many of the problems
Modules solves for GUI environments.  But the new universal GUI is
really a browser.  And the web, especially with Java applets, has a
new way to solve many of the user environment and application 
distribution problems.  Alas, we still have the problem of non-GUI
environments, so there still isn't a clear winner.

 -- richard

Re: Why doesn't everyone use Modules ??

[Will P. <pa...@dc...>]

One reason: it takes too long for "bleeding-edgers" to set
it up "just to try it".  These are the people who would tell
their pals, "Hey, this is really cool!" and eventually lean
on their sysadmins, etc...

It is easy enough to build the basic programs, and Tcl/Tk
isn't an problem -- bleeding-edgers are probably running the
latest beta anyway :-)

The problem is the (many) little modules files that describe
the setup for a particular site.  I suspect it's an
afternoon's work to do *anything*, and more than that to do
something decent, or if you are not Tcl-friendly yet.

A simple solution -- which I've raised before on this list
-- is to gather several sites' modulefiles and shove them
under misc/examples/ in the distribution.  Then the
prospective Modules fiend can just copy *some* set, edit a
few pathnames, and be running, albeit imperfectly.

Will

Why doesn't everyone use Modules ??

[J. P. <J....@Qu...>]

Hello Modules-Interest List,

I was recently made aware of the Modules package when Cray 
adopted it for use with UNICOS and their mutifarious versions
of compilers etc.

I appears to be an extremely useful tool and one which I'm sure
many people have thought about developing from time to time.
Seeing as it is so good why aren't more people aware of it ?

It doesn't seem to have made an impact in any FAQ (like
comp.unix.shells for example) and indeed it took me a while
to find the Tcl implementation using AltaVista.

So where's the catch ?? 
Why hasn't the Linux community (who are quick to adopt good ideas),
for example, latched onto it ? Is it because of the Tcl ?

John P.

The best initialization file setup?

[Jon R. R. <ra...@sc...>]

I was curious as to how other sites setup the initialization files for
each shell.  Also if you have comments on the attached list I would
appreciate them.

We are using Modules 3.0 pre-release.  I did look at user-setup at
Auburn University, compliments of Richard Elling, 
(ftp://ftp.eng.auburn.edu) and I think that it is really good!

I will summarize.

Thanks in advance,

Jon



ksh
	/etc/profile
		module alias setup
		path setup

	~/profile
		module add command

	*module not available in subshells unless kshrc setup
	we might want to do this as part of the /etc/profile
sh
	/etc/profile
		module alias setup
		path setup
	~/profile 
		module add command
tcsh
	/etc/.login
		path setup
	/etc/.cshrc
		module alias setup
	~/.login
		module add command
csh
	~/.cshrc
		module alias setup
	~/.login
		moudle add command
		path setup
		

--
Jon R. Ramsey
Siemens Corporate Research
ra...@sc...