Hi Chris. I personally can't address your Rocks question, but I can say some more about collaboration between BioBrew and Bio-Linux. Believe it or not, it's only been a couple weeks since those involved with BioBrew (including myself) discovered the Bio-Linux project, and vice versa, even though I have known Dan for years. Corresponding with Dan about the projects, it seems that we will probably remain complementary vis-a-vis our target audiences (BioBrew for clusters/servers, Bio-Linux for workstations) but collaborate on using the same bioinformatic tools. In fact, we (at Bioinformatics.Org) plan to make use of our repository (149 projects hosted + archiving to come) in building a collection of RPMs that both BioBrew and Bio-Linux can use. Cheers. Jeff Chris wrote: > > Would it be opening up a can of worms to revisit the discussions from > last August relating biobrew to rocks? They seem to be going the way > you wanted with your neurobiomathphygeobrew idea ... a base rock install > and then various rolls. Have you given any thought to creating a Rocks > BioRoll in addition to/instead of biobrew? > Does it make sense for you and Dan to discuss options that biolinux has > chosen and allow those as options on a FE install? > I'm just asking because I see all three projects as being very valuable > to the research community and would love it if everyone played together > in a fashion that allowed us to easily benefit from _all_ of your hard > work -- instead of just some of it as might be the case if we don't have > the expertise/time to sort and merge ourselves. > > Of course I can completely understand that if building a whole distro is > more interesting to you than just a chunk I would rather there were too > many choices than too few. > > Oh yeah, and thanks to Dan and Glen