[Centos] How quickly are RHEL errata released as CentOS errata ?

Wed May 5 09:15:39 UTC 2004
Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 03:59, Taco Scargo wrote:

> Hi,
> I am deciding on what 'RHEL clone' to use and prefer to use one that has a
> quick release after RedHat releases an update.

CentOS Release 3.1 now includes all updates released before March 19,
2004, later ones are in the updates repo.

> I checked the repositories, but have not encountered any of the latest
> errata. Am I looking at the wrong place ?

Here are all the updates after March 19, 2004:


> Thanks,
> Taco

I won't try to steer you to one RHEL clone or the other, but basically
WhiteBox EL (www.whiteboxlinux.org), Tao (www.taolinux.org) and CentOS
are functionally the same.

I like the fact that CentOS did a respin on 3/19/2004 ... WhiteBoxEL is
also planning a respin after the next quarterly update cycle from

I am on both the CentOS and WhiteBoxEL mailing lists (I use both
distros) and I think either will fit the bill and both do updates fairly
quickly.  CentOS seems to have more developers doing the updates, but
the WhiteBox mailing list is more active.  It is pretty much a tossup
... which is why I have both installed.  

Tao is probably good too, but I don't use it, so I can't really comment
on it.

Also, another good RHEL clone is Fermi Linux
(http://www-oss.fnal.gov/projects/fermilinux/lts301/index.html).   I
have installed it, but I didn't continue to use it and have since erased
it ... so I can't really comment on Fermi Linux either.

- Johnny Hughes

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20040505/090b17ba/attachment-0005.html>