I'm surprised it doesn't annoy the author. I use LLMs extensively for code but I cannot stand their natural language output a lot of the time, it always reminds me of that example from Orwell's Politics and the English Language:
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
> I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern [1946] English:
> Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
A 2026 version of this phenomenon would instead be:
> Here's the thing: success isn't just about talent — it's about timing. The fastest runner doesn't always win. The strongest army doesn't always prevail. Ultimately, life is a complex interplay of skill and chance, and recognizing that can be both humbling and empowering.
That's actually Claude and you can see precisely why the resulting vague language is bad; the LLM has changed the actual meaning of the passage from a sober reflection on the futility of expecting natural justice from the universe to one that emphasises skill and timing, exactly what the author is telling us is futile.
Admittedly the slop text LLMs produce in the 21st century isn't the same as the 20th century slop humans produced, but there's definitely a family resemblance in my view! Orwell was concerned with the idea language can be used to curtail thought, and he disliked what we'd now call slop because it merely gestures at a thought without actually instantiating it directly.
The whole essay is worth a read in my view, it remains highly relevant.
Subsection titles, and how the text flows. When I read these kinds of LLM-Powered posts, I feel the same thing. Like remembering the taste of some canned food which was not great, but I had to consume to stay alive. It feels like junk food, not optimized to taste great, but doesn't reek of machine oil either. A price-optimized, slightly unhealthy substance which is somewhat compatible with my body because of food engineering magic.
These posts are not only a waste of time, but it also makes me feel deceived and betrayed. Why this is important? Because it's the honest take and bears the load of the reality of the post.
Please, don't make me read something you didn't write.
Disclosure: This post, incl. llm-sounding paragraph is typed by a human. All of the keystrokes are 100% human and made possibe by burning ATPs and firing tiny lightning bolts across some brain cells. No humans are harmed or GPU hours are burned in this comment.
Total water consumption: 50ml of cold spring water, because I'm thirsty.
I just don't see the "LLM-speak" here at all, for example. And I'm very tired of people who throw around the LLM-power critique as an easy criticism when there's no clear basis for it. It's lazy and stupid.
There are certain styles for a post like this that some people may not like but things like subheads and what would be, by historical standards somewhat clipped writing are just how writing in this content is mostly encouraged theese days. I'd just add that when people do post long-form New Yorker pieces there's plenty of whining about getting to the point.
"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.
Article quite a mess and, honestly, largely devoid of content. For starters, complains that SL should've continued because other community options might eventually be discontinued/change (as happened with CentOS). Like, duh. By this reasoning every effort should be duplicated to guard against the possibility that one option might disappear. In the end though all those RHEL rebuilds depend on Red Hat maintaining RHEL. The article never notes this and indirectly equalizes the effort and existence of a a genuinely independent community-driven distro (Debian, that CERN decided to move their accelerator-control computers) and RHEL rebuild (e.g., AlmaLinux, that CERN will keep the rest of infrastructure on, e.g. data centers, compute farms, etc). And here's the misguided part. If SL as still active it'll have been necessary to recompile numerous upstream RHEL source packages to remove the microarchitecture restrictions. This will've turned SL to entire new, independently maintained distro. The thing they wanted to avoid.
lo and behold, a 1000 word sample comes back in Pangram as AI generated. This should not be worth anyone's time (and maybe you have spent more time on your comment than the author did in their blogpost).
If I remember correctly, the reason why Scientific Linux was RHEL based instead of Debian because RedHat was a company and can pay them for services.
We used to run it on our Grid nodes, and while it was not bad, it was not that smooth, either. It was a little kludgy but worked if you didn't diverge from the happy paths much.
Now Debian has Extended Long Time Support via Freexian, I believe CERN has enough confidence to use Debian instead of RH family, and that will make lives of some people way easier. Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.
Quite possibly! It was always a pleasure to see the ATLAS jobs running in a process list on an OpenStack hypervisor. We supported Lancaster University for compute (amongst others!).
You can pay companies just fine to support Debian.
> Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.
It's so bad. Coming back to RHEL (new client requirement) after sitting mostly on Debian for years is such a bizzare experience.
You want to install a PostgreSQL database, it doesn't even initialize it, you need to manually do DB init and the rest of the dance.
You want to run DRBD, sorry, we didn't bother to pick that kernel compile option, you can add extra repository for that. But hey, it's the kernel module, which means now you have to enroll cert in Secureboot, and that requires actual KVM access to the VM for someone to confirm it so now I'm on meeting with customer's IT just so they click some buttons in VM's boot process.
Even some common utilities are not in main repos but need EPEL
RedHat has a bad habit of dropping support for things not because they need maintenance but because they're just old.
I once installed a Sun workstation with AMD processor (Athlon64?) and nForce (4?) chipset. The ethernet card was there but it didn't initialize, why? Because RedHat EOLd the kernel module. Why? Because.
Reinstalled the thing with Debian after fighting it for 30 minutes or so, and the thing worked happily ever since.
> You can pay companies just fine to support Debian.
Yes, but this sentence didn't convince who was making these decisions back at CERN, approximately 20 years ago! I'm not even convinced that it was that possible and painless 20 years ago.
We agree about the rest of us, but I still ask why about EPEL stuff while writing salt recipes.
Update system, install EPEL, update system, install creature comforts is a such a bizarre dance to make while I can just write a one long apt command and get a better system in 30 seconds.
...and aptitude. Yes, that TUI thing. It's magnificent.
I think the premise of this article is wrong. Scientific Linux was important once upon a time but these days with userspace containers there is no need for the same level of homogeneity. In practice everyone is using Apptainer on machines that don’t have a singular purpose.
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 read this article and was beginning to feel like it wasn't really going anywhere or making good arguments. Was disappointed, although in hindsight not surprised to find out that it was AI-slop.
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.
Debian is to be used for some legacy systems because RHEL introduced microarchitecture restrictions. Rest of their infra is on AlmaLinux (a RHEL-compatible distro ala Rocky).
Low effort LLM-written content gets upvoted here anyway, despite the writer having little respect for peoples’ time.
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
> I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern [1946] English:
> Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
A 2026 version of this phenomenon would instead be:
> Here's the thing: success isn't just about talent — it's about timing. The fastest runner doesn't always win. The strongest army doesn't always prevail. Ultimately, life is a complex interplay of skill and chance, and recognizing that can be both humbling and empowering.
That's actually Claude and you can see precisely why the resulting vague language is bad; the LLM has changed the actual meaning of the passage from a sober reflection on the futility of expecting natural justice from the universe to one that emphasises skill and timing, exactly what the author is telling us is futile.
Admittedly the slop text LLMs produce in the 21st century isn't the same as the 20th century slop humans produced, but there's definitely a family resemblance in my view! Orwell was concerned with the idea language can be used to curtail thought, and he disliked what we'd now call slop because it merely gestures at a thought without actually instantiating it directly.
The whole essay is worth a read in my view, it remains highly relevant.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Headline that goes "A was this" and next headline "Then b was that".
These posts are not only a waste of time, but it also makes me feel deceived and betrayed. Why this is important? Because it's the honest take and bears the load of the reality of the post.
Please, don't make me read something you didn't write.
Disclosure: This post, incl. llm-sounding paragraph is typed by a human. All of the keystrokes are 100% human and made possibe by burning ATPs and firing tiny lightning bolts across some brain cells. No humans are harmed or GPU hours are burned in this comment.
Total water consumption: 50ml of cold spring water, because I'm thirsty.
There are certain styles for a post like this that some people may not like but things like subheads and what would be, by historical standards somewhat clipped writing are just how writing in this content is mostly encouraged theese days. I'd just add that when people do post long-form New Yorker pieces there's plenty of whining about getting to the point.
prompter*
We used to run it on our Grid nodes, and while it was not bad, it was not that smooth, either. It was a little kludgy but worked if you didn't diverge from the happy paths much.
Now Debian has Extended Long Time Support via Freexian, I believe CERN has enough confidence to use Debian instead of RH family, and that will make lives of some people way easier. Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.
I'm in this for a couple of decades now.
Now a colleague of mine is handling these. I'm more on the OpenStack & HPC side for other stuff.
> Debian is still easier to manage than RH based systems, and .deb is a really good package manager, and is arguably more sophisticated than RPM.
It's so bad. Coming back to RHEL (new client requirement) after sitting mostly on Debian for years is such a bizzare experience.
You want to install a PostgreSQL database, it doesn't even initialize it, you need to manually do DB init and the rest of the dance.
You want to run DRBD, sorry, we didn't bother to pick that kernel compile option, you can add extra repository for that. But hey, it's the kernel module, which means now you have to enroll cert in Secureboot, and that requires actual KVM access to the VM for someone to confirm it so now I'm on meeting with customer's IT just so they click some buttons in VM's boot process.
Even some common utilities are not in main repos but need EPEL
I once installed a Sun workstation with AMD processor (Athlon64?) and nForce (4?) chipset. The ethernet card was there but it didn't initialize, why? Because RedHat EOLd the kernel module. Why? Because.
Reinstalled the thing with Debian after fighting it for 30 minutes or so, and the thing worked happily ever since.
Yes, but this sentence didn't convince who was making these decisions back at CERN, approximately 20 years ago! I'm not even convinced that it was that possible and painless 20 years ago.
We agree about the rest of us, but I still ask why about EPEL stuff while writing salt recipes.
Update system, install EPEL, update system, install creature comforts is a such a bizarre dance to make while I can just write a one long apt command and get a better system in 30 seconds.
...and aptitude. Yes, that TUI thing. It's magnificent.
I was really glad when the vendor started unofficially supporting OpenSuse so I could finally use git on these distros.
Stop upvoting AI-slop people!
It’s quite literally the modern day CentOS
Alma and Rocky provide almost the same thing.