Alternatives To SF.net's CompileFarm?

cronie writes "Not long ago, SourceForge.net announced the shutdown of the Compile Farm — a collection of computers running a wide variety of OSes, available for compiling and testing open source projects. SF.net stated their resources 'are best used at this time in improving other parts' of the service. I consider this sad news for the OSS community, because portability is one of the strengths of OSS, and not many of us have access to such a variety of platforms to compile and test our software on. As a consequence, I expect many projects dropping support for some of the platforms they can't get access to. Are there any sound alternatives with at least some popular OS/hardware combinations? Any plans to create one? (Perhaps Google or IBM might come up with something?)"

Comments

Re:Virtualisation negates the need for a compile f

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not much use for testing compiling on Solaris on SPARC64, or Tru64 on Alpha, etc...

Re:Vendor support...

[TeraCo]

The only problem is that the people compiling aren't the same as the people who are buying.

Industry moving forward

[CaptainTux]

Personally, I see less and less need for compiled and distributed software as broadband internet becomes ubiquitous and rich internet applications become more sophisticated. As it stands now, there is very little that traditional software does that can't be replicated on the web using the right technology. Software as a service is slowly becoming a reality and compiled software is soon to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Re:Industry moving forward

[Excelcia]

And what is the client running? A web browser running on machine with an OS. So, you need compiler, programming, and testing infrastructure for:

• The application provider's OS
• The application provider's network services
• The application
• The client's OS
• The client's network client

And this is supposed to be a less complicated system to write, distribute, and debug than traditional systems that you can do away with traditional compile-farms? Software is a service, no need to install anything. Unless, of course, you want to print something. Or is that a service too? Burning a DVD is a service? Put your DVD-R in the drive, connect to your favourite DVD authoring service, and... go to sleep. Maybe tomorrow your disc will be done. Unless DVD or HD-DVD quality video is something you expect to get solely off broadband.

There are so many exceptions to what software-as-a-service can reasonably do that the majority of people who are reading this do on a daily basis that I just have to laugh when people bring this up. Beyond a wet dream for Microsoft where they lovingly sit back and watch the monthly subscription dollars roll in, this is never going to happen.

Re:Industry moving forward

[rbarreira]

Implement a media player on the "software as a service" model.

Now implement a cryptography library on the "software as a service" model. Oops, you're sending plain text data through the cables...

Now implement a real time application on the "software as a service" model.

Now implement an application which requires near-100% availability on the "software as a service" model.

Now implement a high-end game on the "software as a service" model.

Are you done? Do you like the results?

Re:They announced this AFTER the shutdown?

[Animats]

It was announced afterwards for a reason. They're not really taking it down because nobody wants it or anything, it's because they lack manpower to keep it working. It basically needs a lot of work to get it back in a usable state, and it's not widely used, so they're just dropping it.

This is the classic downside of "software as a service".

Re:Vendor support...

[Peet42]

The only problem is that the people compiling aren't the same as the people who are buying.

True, but remember that the more software that eventually runs on your platform, the more people who are likely to adopt it.

Re:Can we start a replacement project

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's expensive: power, cooling, rent on the building with the rackspace, and bandwidth all add up to a considerable chunk of change. And the professional skills to run such a farm are unusual and expensive to hire, or to contribute. Even a modest Q/A testing and evaluation farm can cost a few hundred thousand dollars a year when you add up all the costs.

Re:Vendor support...

[imemyself]

I don't know if it would be suitable for the sort of thing you're talking about, but HP has (or atleast they had it a year or so ago), a thing where you can telnet into a variety of different systems they had. Mostly OpenVMS and HP-UX running a a few different architectures. I know that you didn't have network access from the box that you telnetted into, but I don't know what other restrictions there were. It might be something to check out if you're interested in making software for some of HP's higher-end stuff, but don't have the hardware to run OpenVMS or HP-UX.

Re:Virtualisation negates the need for a compile f

[Haeleth]

This is true.. how many operating systems are in wide use for most applications these days?

We have... Windows, MacOS, Linux, and BSD.

All of them in numerous different versions, and in the case of OS X, Linux, and BSD, running on a variety of hardware. (There's still PLENTY of PPC-based Macs around, for one.)

I spose there's still people working with Sun/Solaris and HP/UX and AIX

Damn right. More than you'd think, in fact.

but for the most part, open source devs care that it works on their stuff, and to heck with whatever else.

Do you consider this an attitude to be encouraged?

And even if you don't see a problem with it, what about those OS devs who do actually kind of like the idea of testing on a variety of hardware? There aren't many hobbyists who can afford to buy servers from HP and IBM.

Re:Virtualisation negates the need for a compile f

[vrai]

I spose there's still people working with Sun/Solaris

Yes, such as the entire banking industry and almost all it's associated software vendors. Admittedly there's been a move towards Solaris/x86 but there's still a huge market for UltraSparc machines; not all jobs can efficiently distributed across multiple machines and Intel architecture can't provide more than 16 cores. The Cell processor is attracting a lot of attention as a potential replacement for Sparc and requires specialist development machines. You can't really test your new Cell optimised uber-parallel pricing model on a four core Intel.

For most open source software you're completely correct - it'll never run on anything more exotic than a Core Duo. But if you're developing something other than desktop applications (e.g. programming languages, libraries, frameworks, etc) and you want your software to be used by the widest possible audience; you need to test it on as many architectures and operating systems as possible.

Usage stats?

[Orlando]

As a consequence, I expect many projects dropping support for some of the platforms they can't get access to.

Do we have any actual data on how popular the service was? I think this was a neat idea, but if it wasn't being used it won't be missed...

Re:VMs

[Curtman]

The SF.net CompileFarm was not there to provide 'power'.

I believe he meant this kind of power. ;)

Re:Vendor support...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard this argument before. From a vendor's point of view, it is so divorced from reality as to be laughable. Let's face it, if you, as a developer, have enough pull to direct a couple million US dollars toward a hardware contract (or even a few hundred thousand), you probably aren't sucking around for free equipment and resources. If you don't have the ability to throw that much cash at a vendor, there isn't a lot of incentive to talk, is there? Workstation/server vendors have different cost structures and markets than PC vendors.