Re: Linux Flavour for Oracle 9i

From: HansF <news.hans_at_telus.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:48:51 GMT
Message-ID: <n7ild.149747$df2.129751@edtnps89>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> 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
I will agree to the term fork. I was using the term mimic in the sense of 'acting the same, looking different' and they are certainly changing the logos to look different.

There are also a few minor things different - "How is WhiteBox Linux updated? ... Obviously RHN isn't available as an option, so yum has been brought in from Fedora along with a version of up2date that can work with yum"

There is also a concern about whether there is any software to which RedHat retains a copyright. It happened with SuSE's YAST, although I believe YAST has now been released under GPL. Once bitten ...

As to the statement about not creating their own patches ... from their site http://www.whiteboxlinux.org, I quote

"What can you do to help?

• Download and install White Box. Poke it in unexpected places and see what breaks. Report problems so they can get fixed. As with all Open Source efforts, bug reports are good, patches are better still. "

The last 4 words are of interest. My interpretation is that they will permit divergence of the software, albeit while trying to maintain their goal of being compatible with _RHEL3_ until October 2008. (We have both incorrectly stated RHAS - they aim for RHEL compatibility.)

Amusingly, they do also state the will maintain compatibility with a union of RH -AS, -ES, -WS, -PWS and so on. This implies some compromises, even if it aims to be 100% binary compatible with RHEL.

I will continue to use WhiteBox as the alternative to RH 'commercial' versions for development, test and training environments because I am comfortable that it is close enough. However, I will also continue urge potential users to use it with eyes wide open as there are no guarantees of compatibility (it's a goal, not a guarantee). There may also be timing issues in releases of errata srpms that could affect users in production.

I am sure you could (probably will) point out other flaws in my statements. The last word is yours. <g>

/Hans Received on Sat Nov 13 2004 - 00:48:51 CST