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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
