[WBEL-users] Up2date and WB3.0 Mirrors.

[Scott Silva]

Jeff O'Brien spake the following on 10/11/2006 6:20 AM:
> Scott Silva wrote:
>> Karanbir Singh spake the following on 10/10/2006 1:41 AM:
>>  
>>> Brian Thies wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Greetings fellow users:
>>>> Over several months, the up2date gui interface almost never worked, I
>>>> started using yum to update my machines. However, I would much rather
>>>> use the gui interface.
>>>> Using the command line for up2date, I made a discovery about why the
>>>> gui doesn't work.
>>>> The mirrors for WB3 are badly out of date. only about 40% of the
>>>> mirrors that whitebox-mirrors points to are current. For example:
>>>> ftp.gtlib.cc.gatech.edu is being deprecated. jach.hawaii.edu doesnt
>>>> have a 3.0 directory. and phantomhosting.com has no whitebox
>>>> directories at all!
>>>> Any idea of who to talk to to get the mirror list updated?
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> try http://www.centos.org/
>>>
>>> is WBEL even being maintained anymore ?
>>>
>>> - KB
>>>
>>>     
>> I haven't seen much traffic on the list since hurricane Katrina. Maybe
>> John
>> has his hands full right now.
>> I second the idea of going to CentOS. I did last year, and haven't looked
>> back. I have been watching the list anyway, just to give something
>> back to
>> Whitebox for the year I did use it.
>>
>> CentOS has more maintainers, and much more activity on its lists. I
>> don't want
>> to get into bashing John Morris, but he never intended for Whitebox to be
>> anything more than a distro for his parish library to use without the
>> costs of
>> paying for RedHat.  To quote the homepage of Whitebox;
>>
>> "Why was White Box Linux created?
>>
>> White Box Linux's initial creation has been sponsored by the
>> Beauregard Parish
>> Public Library in DeRidder, LA USA out of self interest. We have several
>> servers and over fifty workstations running Red Hat Linux and were
>> left high
>> and dry by their recent shift in business plan. Our choices were a
>> difficult
>> migration to another distribution or paying RedHat an annual fee
>> greater than
>> the amortized value of our hardware. So we chose a third path, made
>> possible
>> by the power of Open Source.... White Box Linux. "
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> Im sure a few of us still have some whitebox production machines (I know
> I do), but as far as making a transistion does anyone see problems with
> migrating say whitebox 3.0/4.0 to centOS 3.X/4.X(latest or most recent
> stable)?
> 
> I dont like the idea of leaving production mail or web servers out there
> all alone on the internet with no updates or not having anyone ( If I
> left my position ) being able to maintain them or help lists unavailable.
> 
> I have recently joined the CentOS site and I'll probably start to
> transition all my WhiteBox machines and current builds to CentOS.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
There is no problem doing so, and there is a howto on the CentOS site.
http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=19
It is for Chitebox 3 to CentOS 3, but you just need to fix a few things, (like
change the 3 to a 4), but should work the same.



-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!