Fedora - The Next Generation

[Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 09:20:32AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 00:39, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:50:37PM -0700, T. Nifty Hat Mitchell wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 06:20:10PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > > ....
> > > > > By stripping down the initial install we can fokus on making Fedora better
> > > > > and we can actually implement some of the suggestions on this list.  Being
> > > > > based on Fedora it should be easy to add additional components as required,
> > > > > something like a minimal install and add what you need.
> > > > ----
> > > > your fondness or lack thereof of edge / release scheduled distributions
> > > > is noted but not of interest to fedora. Production servers really should
> > > > be on 'stable' which is what you want. White Box is what you want...RHEL
> > > > for free. I would encourage them to use RHEL but if they want stable for
> > > > free...this is the ticket.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > whiteboxlinux, Tao and Centos Linux...
> > > 
> > > Think clearly about using a parasitic distribution that takes the source
> > > of a supported product and deprives the primary support organization
> > > of it's beer money.
> > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/os/i386/SRPMS
> > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3AS/en/os/SRPMS
> > 
> > RedHat allows this, so it must feel that either it gains on doing this, or
> > it isn't losing much (it decided against RH Linux and moved to Fedora for
> > *some* reasons).
> > 
> > WhiteBox compiles and packages a distribution that is worthwhile to the
> > community, for nothing. How is it being parasitic?
> ----
> from dictionary.com "parasite"
> 
> 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on 
>    or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the
>    survival of its host.
> 2.   a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of
>         others without making any useful return.
>      b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
> 3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Well, those imply taking something away from the host, and thus my
reluctance to accept such term.

> Probably a fair statement that it is parasitic. The problem lies that
> people attach a negative connotation to the term. Parasites are
> sometimes beneficial to the hosts though the above suggests that this is
> not the case...nature is full of contradictions.

Those are more often called symbiotes. :)

> By virtue of GPL and other various licenses, Red Hat must make source
> available for their RHEL but not necessarily in this form.

And not to everybody, but they chose so.

> But
> considering that the largesse and certainly the most valuable code in
> RHEL is derived from others efforts, this seems to be a fair enough
> proposition.
> 
> The problems with an RHEL clone are more to the tune of the fact that
> you are uncertain of how many eyes are auditing it, that bug reports
> don't get back to the providers (Red Hat) and of course, there is no
> accountability (i.e. support).
> 
> It's an option, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and people will have to decide for themselfs what's best for them.
But to call WB as "parasitic" and 'depriving the primary support
organization of it's beer money' seems not 'a bit loaded' but an insult to
the whitebox people and a failure to realize that it is providing
something valuable to the community and, IMO, to RedHat.

And yes, maybe I overreacted and should had just ignored the message.

Regards,
Luciano Rocha

-- 
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.