On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 08:12, WipeOut wrote: > David C. Hart wrote: > > >On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 07:30, Mark wrote: > > > > > >>Yes and currently testing it. Seems like a good distro so far. > >> > >>On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 06:16, WipeOut wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Has anyone taken a look at www.whiteboxlinux.org ?? > >>> > >>>Its basically RHEL 3 recompiled from the src.rpms. No price, No restrictions.. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >Fedora looks more current. Is there anything in WB that is not in FC1? > > > Yes, theoretical support for the current version till 2008.. :) and hopefully stability. Testing here so far looks very good. There have been a number of reports on the whitebox-devel (http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel) and whitebox-users (http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users) lists of good results using Fedora packages either directly or by rebuilds form source. Some of the basic packages were also adopted from Fedora to satisfy dependencies missing in the RHEL SRPMs and to produce a self-hosting OS -- rebuilds on itself -- unlike RHEL. Dag Wieers RHEL3 Repository (http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el3/en/i386/dag) seems to work (minimal testing so far) for extra compatible packages. May also want to have a look at: Tao Linux - http://taolinux.org/ cAos or CentOS - http://caosity.org/ > Makes using Fedora great for desktops and development systems and WBEL > great from production servers.. > > Later.. Agree with the server part, but am still forming an opinion of the suitability of Fedora for production desktops that require a high degree of stability. WBEL might be a good choice there also, but not as much fun as Fedora for those who want the latest-greatest or bleeding-edge packages. ;^) Quoting an earlier thread... > None of the RH-derived variants is likely to be good for your Windoze > users - not very well-rated as a desktop OS. Xandros, Lycoris, SuSE, > Mandrake, and Lindows [if you're not afraid of running as root :( ] > have all gotten better reviews in that area. Phil Schaffner
