Hi all,

I have been researching White Box Linux recently.

It looks like a good distro for anyone who wants a Fork of the RHEL without having to pay for support.

Or if you just want to get some experience using an enterprise version of Linux without having to pay big money for it White box is for you.

They have also just updated their current version which is now available for D/L.

Check it out.

Thorn

I find CentOS to be a better alternative as they release updates much faster. We also have a dedicated forum for it at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...php?forumid=44

www.centos.org

Trickykid,

I went to the CentOS website referenced in your post.

CentOS is getting hassled by Redhat for Branding & trademark usage.

That could be a problem with forked Open source code that is "branded".

Since they are going to revise the GNU license, I think that they should make "branding" and Trademarks searchable in the source. So that users who wish to use identical source code, such as CentOS & White Box can strip out the brands and avoid the legal trouble that seems to be creeping into the Open source community.

Anyone who agrees please say so.

Thorn

Actually, anyone who uses the source is REQUIRED by the GPL to retain the RedHat credits in the source. Redhat CANNOT hassle anyone over that - if they have a problem with the GPL, well, Redhat has gotten into the wrong business.

I for one have hated Redhat since they abandoned the workstation/desktop market. Sure, Fedora is free, but it is a steaming pile of crud. No offense to Fedora fans intended.

Kim,

I'm not talking about the credits I'm talking about the trademarks and branding.

Credits equal text files, trademarks and brands are usually graphics and logos.

Thus I am suggesting that graphical elements and logos not be hardcoded into the source code.
If there is object oriented source coding the graphics and logos would reside in a special library that could be commented out so that other open source developers could avoid trademark infringement whenever they use the identical open source code from a company such as Red Hat.

Thorn

Well, RedHat gave license to recompile, redistribute, resell, modify, etc. the source as-is without any further compensation, credit, yadda yadda (you all know the GPL) those packages. If they had wanted the trademarks to not be included and redistributed by third parties under the GPL, they ought to have simply included the graphics, trademarks, etc. as external files. It's RedHat's screwup either way. I'm not surprised.

so i'm not the only one although i do have core 3 running on one box to remind myself that it's still better than xandros.

I just installed Fedora Core 3 on my cousin's office machine and it is *bloated* and so resource hungry. By default it takes ages to start up. Even KDE is slower in Fedora than in Debian or Gentoo.

It seems Fedora has taken three steps back with Core 3 from Core 2 and that the whole project seems to have been put together merely for the sake of testing future RedHat releases. I would avoid FC 3 on my desktop.

So KimVette, we agree on something at last!

Isn't gentoo installed form source, and therefore wouldn't you expect it to be faster than on Fedora where its installed be RPM?

There isn't a substantial speed difference I noticed between Debian and Gentoo actually.

Gentoo is a bit faster, but not by much, than Debian. It took me a whole night and a morning to compile KDE so I should have expected better performance.

Fedora Core 3, on the other hand, was way too slow and KDE took ages to load. App-loading time was also a bit slower in some cases.

I'm a dedicated mandrake user and I have considered the swich to other distros but to be honest KDE works fast enough for my needs. Gentoo sounds good but I havent got the free time to compile everthing needed.