[TriLUG] Whitebox vs. CentOS?

[Jeremy Portzer]

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 11:02, Matt Frye wrote:
> > Any opinions from the group on differences between the two?
> 
> Whitebox is stable and smooth.  CentOS does have a more active
> community, but the slower pace of WB fits my needs as a model closer
> to RHEL and less Fedora-like.

I'm not sure what you mean by "slower pace."  CentOS, like WBEL,
rebuilds the SRPMS and updates from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, RHEL.  The
"pace" of updates is identical among all three versions (minus a small
delay for WBEL and CentOS to rebuild).  It's not a "closer model" of
RHEL -- they are both *IDENTICAL* to RHEL.

Now, the folks that make CentOS also have Caosity (sp?), which is a more
cutting-edge distribution, but this is a separate project.


> In any case, WB performs well.  I can tell you from experience that RH
> rpms run without any problems.

Yes, it should.

Jeremy
-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer        jeremyp at pobox.com      trilug.org/~jeremy     |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F  E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/attachments/20041018/e73e47a5/attachment.pgp>