Re: Linux Flavour for Oracle 9i

HansF wrote:

[snip]

> 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.

My belief so far is that a couple of logos is all the difference. But whatever...

> 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"

But the first thing I do with my install is install XINE. Same deal, is it not? It's now not 'virgin' RH. But the kernel/core/whatever still is.  

> 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 ...

Fair enough...

> 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. "

Well, we read that differently. I read that simply as encouragement to contribute to general open source efforts, not a statement that they will release their own patches. They're a public library in the middle of nowhere... I doubt they will be releasing anything very much of their own volition any time soon!

> 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.)

I get confused. I'm not entirely sure what the difference is anymore. Care to shed enlightenment to me and everyone else? RHAS21, wasn't it? "Advanced Server 2.1". The "3.0" Red Hat thing was also "Advanced Server", I thought.

> 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 give up at those concentrations of alphabet soup!

> 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).

I 1000% agree with that. Close enough for me to say it's the same, because I like giving the essential gist, even if it's not the microscopic technical truth. But short of parting with vast wads of cash, you are definitely on your own as far as the future is concerned.

> There may also be timing
> issues in releases of errata srpms that could affect users in production.

Lord. I hope no-one really uses this in production!

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

The game here is to help enlighten everyone, not to point out flaws. I hope the last word will actually be yours, because I for one don't understand the subtleties between an AS and and ES...

Regards
HJR Received on Sat Nov 13 2004 - 01:31:14 CST