[WBEL-users] WBEL Vs Centos ? :-S

[Raimo Koski]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Johnny Hughes wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 20:00 -0600, Kirby C. Bohling wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > You said roughly "it's not a Whitebox Issue".  In that context, you
> > meant it wasn't "This is not the fault of anyone who works at
> > beau.org".  However, Johnny Hughes (sorry if I'm putting words in
> > your mouth Johnny), said roughly "this was an issue with Whitebox".
> > In that context, he meant it's a problem for anyone who uses WB, not
> > that it's some deficiency of anyone at beau.org.  You are two ships
> > passing in the night.  You are seeming to try rebut what he said,
> > while using different interpretations of the same word (in this case
> > "Whitebox").
> 
> Exactly what I meant Kirby - The end result is that users of WhiteBox
> Linux can not expect to get updates as reliably or as quickly as from
> any other RHEL rebuild project. That is fact ... there are many causes.
> The largest of which is that the NCSU mirror seems to have MANY issues,
> and it is the only one the others can sync with.

Add poor library with only T1 line as one of the causes. When Lineox had 
initial release we had 100Mbps line. From http://caosity.org/news you can 
read that CentOS 3.3 resulted in 6TB of transfers and they consider that a 
reasonable donation starts at $12US per system per year. Lineox update
subscriptions start at 15 Euros, but volume prices are lower than CentOS 
"rates" and Lineox offers also free downloads.



-- 
Raimo Koski  http://www.lineox.com  http://www.raimokoski.com/