[wplug] White Box Linux

[Carl B.]

On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 03:38, Vanco, Don wrote:
> Carl B. [cbenedic at pittsburghtechs.com] wrote:
> > http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/index.html
> > 
> > I saw this recently and I am considering trying it out.  Has
> > anyone else
> > heard of it / about it / or even used it?  It is based on
> > RHEL3.  I am a
> > fan of RH, although there are 3 things I dislike:  (1) RPM is ok, but
> > pkgtool is better! :) 
> rpm + yum + apt will rule the world.
> 	RPM (and up2date) work very well on the distro they were designed
> for.  RPM manages packages incredibly well, and up2date and RHN manage dep
> resolution equally well.  If you're itching to build an unstable distro than
> RHEL (or any clone) is not for you.  It's an entirely different philosophy.
> 
Agreed.  RHEL is intended for the corporate environment, and stability
should be key here, not bleeding edge unstable software.  This does not
seem to be the case with White Box EL though.  From their homepage:

"What is the goal for White Box Linux?

To provide an unencumbered RPM based Linux distribution that retains
enough compatibility with Red Hat Linux to allow easy upgrades and to
retain compatibility with their Errata srpms. Being based off of RHEL3
means that a machine should be able to avoid the upgrade treadmill until
Oct 2008 since RHEL promises Errata availability for five years from
date of initial release and RHEL3 shipped in Oct 2003.

Or more briefly, to fill the gap between Fedora and RHEL."

> > (2) EVERY package is compiled for i386.  
> 	If that's an issue then simply do what the WB folks have done - pull
> the source and compile your own distro.  Frankly, I'm puzzled by this move -
> perhaps it was too hard for them to compile with the "arch=" option :)  
> 	You could go even one better - build a DVD installer rather than the
> traditional CDs.  I have a link to this is anyone is interested....
> 

This is something I have been working on casually for the last 3 months
or so.  Each distro has its good and bad points.  I will inevitably
build a custom system for myself.  

> > (3) The
> > new changes involving RH's future bite.  
> 	In what way?  They're an Enterprise Linux company, and what they're
> doing reflect that very well.  We sell _a lot_.  Not a personal attack here,
> but it's _really_ tiring to hear all the desktop users whining about RHEL
> when RHEL is no longer aimed at them.  Want free/flexible/unstable?  Look at
> Fedora (which, BTW, kicks @$$) or stick with Debian.
> 

Let me rephrase that.  It is disheartening to see many folks walk away
from RH Linux because of RH's moves.  I guess in a way this is a
testament to RH, as it seems they we able to capture many users /
businesses that depended on their product.  It is inevitable that those
users who want to walk away from RH Linux will either pony up the $ for
RHEL or move to something else.  I have tried Fedora, BTW, and I do like
it.  I am anxious to see the release of Fedora Core 2.

> > As far as #3, White Box says
> > they believe they will be supported due to being based on RHEL3 (more
> > info on the above URL). 
> 	That is one HUGE leap of faith.  Seriously.  I cannot foresee Oracle
> (as a ferinstance) _ever_ taking the time (or the risk in jeopardizing the
> RH relationship) in supporting this distro.  No one with a true business
> critical app will ever run this distro in order to save $2500/year - it's a
> really bad idea(tm).  Look at enterprise class application vendors - they
> barely support SuSE and Red Hat (and occasionally United Linux) as it is....
> I would expect to see Debian support before White Box Linux.
> 

Again, I was not clear on this.  By "being supported", I meant that they
will be able to take advantage of RH's errata SRPMS from RHEL3 while
RHEL3 is still in it's life cycle.  White Box will be basing itself off
from these SRPMS.  

> 	As a "casual user" it's got merits, and it's free - but I never see
> it going beyond the casual user.  If it were compiled for 686 I could see
> some traction in Beowulf clusters - but here again, any serious users have
> already pulled the source and compiled as needed.  That's one thing that
> rpm(build) has going for it - ease of duplication/regeneration.
> 

It seems to be aimed at the "casual user" from what the website says.  I
thought this would be worth a looksee for some of those disgruntled RH
users who arent ready to migrate to something really different yet.

- Carl

> My $.02
> Don
> _______________________________________________
> wplug mailing list
> wplug at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>