FedoraThis forum is for the discussion of the Fedora Project.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I've been using FC2 and I gotta tell ya' I'm not liking it, I've had too many problems
with it, sound, video, cdrom won't mount data cd's etc.
Thinking of switching to White Box, but there's not a whole lot of info
on their website.
So my question is what's the difference between the two?
Does anybody have any experience with White box?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
White Box is basically Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the red hat logos, up2date, or rhn. I used to use FC2, but then I discovered Slackware. It has a bit of a learning curve, but for me it was well worth it.
acidblue: Before giving up on FC, back up and try FC1. FC1 may only have the 2.4 kernel, but it didn’t have the level of hardware problems associated with FC2 and it didn’t screw up your partitions during installation with respect to dual booting windows. The general feel of FC1 and FC2 are very similar, so you can build on what you learned with FC2 instead of starting over. Surely, things will improve with FC3.
I just installed WhiteBox and so far I like.
I tried FC1 before FC2 and it was worse.
I might try FC3, i don't know so far FC has a poor track record with me.
Originally posted by WhatsHisName acidblue: Before giving up on FC, back up and try FC1. FC1 may only have the 2.4 kernel, but it didn’t have the level of hardware problems associated with FC2 and it didn’t screw up your partitions during installation with respect to dual booting windows. The general feel of FC1 and FC2 are very similar, so you can build on what you learned with FC2 instead of starting over. Surely, things will improve with FC3.
Just my
I think most of your problems will be resolved if you are willing to learn to compile your own kernels. Am I right?
Originally posted by slackwaregeek White Box is basically Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the red hat logos, up2date, or rhn. I used to use FC2, but then I discovered Slackware. It has a bit of a learning curve, but for me it was well worth it.
Except that slackware in many areas is not very well configured, in my experience.
I don't believe that you are right when you say that "slackware is not well configured". The philosophy behind Slackware is that you configure and optimise it the way that suites you best hence configuration is left to the user.
Originally posted by reddazz I don't believe that you are right when you say that "slackware is not well configured". The philosophy behind Slackware is that you configure and optimise it the way that suites you best hence configuration is left to the user.
By pre-configuring something to the needs of the majority of your users, you are not taking away the users' ability to subsequently change that configuration.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
