Re: Linux Flavour for Oracle 9i

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:41:29 +1100
Message-Id: <41959e57$0$31870$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

HansF wrote:

> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>

>> HansF wrote:
>> 
>> Won't disagree with anything you wrote except...
>> 
>>> - WhiteBox Linux for development as it mimics RH3AS.
>> 
>> It doesn't "mimic" RHAS3, it *is* RHAS3. Exact same source. Just RH
>> proprietary logos removed. "Mimic" makes it sound like it's an emulation,
>> or an approximation, rather than what it truly is: a clone.
>> 
>> A minor quibble, I agree.
>> 
>> Regards
>> HJR

>
> Counter-quibble .... even 'they' say it is _derived_ from RHAS3. From the
> http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
>
> "This product is derived from the Free/Open Source Software made available
> by Red Hat, Inc but IS NOT produced, maintained or supported by Red Hat.
> Specifically, this product is forked from the source code for Red Hat's
> _Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3_ product under the terms and conditions of
> it's EULA."
>
> The only reason for my 'mimic' statement is that WhiteBox is not obligated
> to (nor has the resources for) keeping up with RH's service packs. In
> addition, they are creating and providing their own patches which may not
> be retrofit to RHAS. Thus it is a true fork, not an exact duplicate.
> Anyone who does not recognize that may find themselves in a bind down the
> road, even though they are OK for now.
>
> WhiteBox is now in exactly the same position as Mandrake was several years
> ago, when *that* was forked from RedHat.
>
> /Hans

OK then: let's agree to use the technical term 'fork', though it's a word that has little meaning (in this context) outside the rareified atmosphere of Linux distros. At least within those circles its meaning is unambiguous, and is therefore correct.

We could continue to discuss whether 'clone' or 'mimic' is a more accurate -closer- description for the general public of a distro fork, and I presume we would continue to disagree.

The point for me is that White Box is built from the RHAS3 sources, and its patches are similarly built from Red Hat's own Errata srpms... meaning, incidentally, that they do NOT "create and provide their OWN patches which may not retrofit to RHAS", not at an rate in the sense of knocking up their own code.

That is decidedly NOT what Mandrake does or did several years ago, it seems to me. White Box's goal (however they choose to dress it up) is to be a free RHAS3. Mandrake's was to be a better distro.

If they took RHAS source to start with; and if they patch it in the future with RHAS source; and if they write no source of their own; then it seems to me it walks, swims and quacks and therefore is RHAS3, not something merely pretending to be it or seeking to approximate it (the usual implications of the word "mimic").

Regards
HJR Received on Fri Nov 12 2004 - 23:41:29 CST