> -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin J. Weiss [mailto:benjamin@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx 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
