RH 9 to FC1/FC2 and some questions

[Phil Schaffner]

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 08:46 -0500, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> > You see I know a lot of people who are eyeing slackware as an
> > alternative to a stable RH platform, should Fedora not be so. Am really
> > looking to resolve this issue in my mind...so the Gurus please do
> > comment.
> 
> I'm looking at http://www.whiteboxlinux.org as a possible replacement for 
> RHL 9 on my home server.  It's one of a few distros that's taking the 
> source code for RHEL ES 3.0 that Redhat is graciously donating to the 
> community and turning it into a seperate distro.  (There are others in a 
> recent thread, I can't remember them off of the top of my head.)

CentOS3 (http://caosity.org/) - Slow starter compared to WBEL, but a
larger team and reportedly faster getting updates out.

Tao Linux (http://taolinux.org/)

> The beauty of this is that RedHat is going to support RHEL ES 3.0 for five 
> years, and as long as they continue to release the source of their 
> updates, whitebox and their brothers shouldn't have very much difficulty 
> in releasing security updates in a timely manner.  This is a source of 
> much reassurance considering that day-zero exploits are becoming more 
> common of late.
> 
> Fedora is a very cool product/project.  You just have to realize that it's 
> not intended for all applications.  Of course, there are many on this list 
> who will disagree completely. :)

Not I.  WBEL is working great on servers for us.  RHEL is also great if
you need the support and can afford the price (and thanks to Red Hat and
the re-builders for the fact that both options are still available).  We
bought boxed sets of RHL for years, but seldom took advantage of the
included support.  Fedora is cool, but too dynamic for servers, or for
production systems that don't require the more leading/bleeding-edge
capabilities.

Phil