Whitebox Linux

[Ow Mun Heng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin J. Weiss [mailto:benjamin at weiss.name]

> > > But as long as there are SRPMS there can be community support.

Yeah since The EULA & Linux's GPL states that it need to be 
given back to the community. SRPMS has been provided and updated.

I reckon that updates can be performed using yum/apt/up2date 
and since I know DAG Wieers provides updates..

> >
> > The point being made is that if you find a bug in Whitebox 
> Linux, and that bug doesn't get fixed in a RHEL update, and the Whitebox
> > maintainers can't fix it, Red Hat has no obligation to fix that bug.

True, however, your statement is a bit conflicting. if I find a bug in 
whitebox and that bug is also found in RHEL, then RH will be obligated to 
get it fixed. The only question is _IF_ the bug is only in whitebox and not
in RHEL. Then what happens? 

Although the upgrade/update cycle is supposed to be 3-8 years long (based
on RH), I worry about the support from whitebox community.

& As Dave Jones at redhat.com said, once this becomes "community suported"
		    ^^^^^^
That changes some things.. Dependency nightmare, SRPMs errors/differences
due 
to Architecture(?) differences?? etc..

I like the idea of slow_upgrades/long life. I don't really like to entertain
the idea of updating my servers/desktop to the bleeding edge every 2-6
months.
(clean install or otherwise)


> Something like whitebox looks like it might be a way out.  I 
> sure intend to look into it when I get a bit more time.  Not because I
mind 

If someone would write up a nice desc/detail about whitebox as a Distro and 
publish it somewhere, It would be great. I'm currently DL'ing the ISOs from 
the Torrent and hopefully can install it into my laptop for tests. (&
hopefully
will like it)


Things are looking up for RH as a company. However, I think I'm speaking
for the general community that we're being left with a sour taste in 
our mouths.

My 2 cents worth anyway..


Cheers,
Mun Heng, OW