[WBEL-users] Upgrade Path

[Fernando Apesteguía]

I recently had a problem with my computer and I had to choose which
distribution install now.. ( I was user of WBEL 3.0 and 4.0). At
least, I decide to use Fedora Core 6. Just because I needed some
features and updates that were impossible to get with the actual WBEL
staff.

Of course, althoug politely, John refushes help in the past. But I saw
this, after a lot of people complain about that rejecting: I offer my
help, my machine and my time, and nobody answered
(http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/2006-October/007689.html)

I love whitebox linux, stable, nice, easy, good RHEL clone... but no
one can managed this monster alone.

All of us can keep WBEL alive, but not a single people. That includes
John Morris. I appreciate his job, but now whitebox is not an active
project (excepting this list, and it is not also very active...)

My offer is still valid.

Best Regards

On 11/29/06, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
> Vic spake the following on 11/29/2006 7:24 AM:
> >> I suspect that you are reacting to some perceived pressure that wasn't
> >> intended by CentOS users.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly hope you're right. I think it's completely unethical to
> > spend one's time on the mailing list for a particular distribution, but
> > contribute little but pressure to switch to an alternative.
> >
> > Nonetheless, the pressure does exist; it might be from a minority of
> > users, but it reflects on the whole community.
> >
> >> The fact is that it is relatively easy to switch a system over from WBEL
> >> to CentOS and continue on and I think that was the point that people
> >> have been trying to get across.
> >
> > That's never been debated, AFAIK. I believe we all know how easy it is to
> > switch between the two distros. The fact that some of us do not is not a
> > technical problem.
> >
> >> The problem with WBEL is that from its inception, it was driven by the
> >> efforts of just one person and that's just too much work load for any
> >> one person and your efforts, though similarly well-intentioned are
> >> likely to suffer the same fate.
> >
> > This is a distinct possibility; nevertheless, I intend to try. My job is
> > made the harder because there is so much to be done; I expect that to
> > become easier over time as the backlog is cleared. There will be times
> > when I have trouble getting things out as quickly as other people might -
> > but I don't see that as an enormous problem. The updates will happen in a
> > timely fashion, even if they don't set any World Speed Records :-)
> >
> >> In the end, it makes sense to join a
> >> project where the workload is shared by a group so that the efforts can
> >> be spread amongst many and there is overlap of responsibility.
> >
> > I fully take your point. However, I do not wish to be associated with a
> > distro that spends significant effort bashing others. My dislike of CentOS
> > is based almost exclusively on a distaste for the behaviour of some (and
> > not all) of its leading lights.
> >
> >> If and
> >> when you finally get to the point where you have update packages built,
> >> there still remains the problem of distribution of these updates which
> >> is no small hurdle itself.
> >
> > I think I've got that covered. I have server space & bandwidth for the
> > foreseeable future, and just this morning, I was offered a mirror. If
> > there is still as much interest in WBEL as my BitTorrent machine implies,
> > I might need more mirrors - I expect those to arrive at opportune moments,
> > but if they don't, there are all sorts of ways of getting cheap server
> > space. I don't mind putting some of my money into this venture - it's
> > saved me enough over the years.
> >
> >> The reason I believe that WBEL is dead is that I see John Morris post on
> >> Red Hat's Nahant mail list but won't respond on his own list here.
> >
> > This worries me somewhat - but that's John's decision. I'm rather hoping
> > he'll come back to the status he had once (in which case I'll happily fold
> > the Updates project), but if he doesn't, we'll carry on without him.
> >
> > Vic.
> I waited to get to the end of this thread to throw in my 2 cents. I in no way
> or manner was bashing Whitebox. I was just offering a bit of a heads up to
> someone that was planning to do an upgrade anyway.
>
> I was a faithful follower of Whitebox in the beginning, as were several other
> people that moved on to CentOS. Many people offered to help John maintain
> Whitebox, and he politely declined. No angry words, no hatred, no bashing, he
> just declined the offer. Only John knows why, but that is in the past.
>
> I know that there was some "bad blood" over the whiteboxlinux.net site, but
> that is long over, and now there is just a search redirector there. The fact
> that people like Karanbir and Craig still watch this list is a testament to
> their willingness to help. I also hang around to help, But to really take over
> a distribution, you need to be given the "keys", and without the signing keys,
> you will lose a certain amount of trust.
>
> I feel bad for any project to drop out, and do not wish Whitebox to go away,
> but sometimes the pressures of life do get in the way. It seems that the
> damages that Katrina placed on the Louisiana region might have been what has
> kept John so busy, and I wish him the best.
>
> --
>
> MailScanner is like deodorant...
> You hope everybody uses it, and
> you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whitebox-users mailing list
> Whitebox-users at beau.org
> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users
>