<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: secure path  &amp;amp; kernel versions in Operating System - Linux</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199859#M73353</link>
    <description>I agree 100% with Dirk. Deviating from the standard open-source release paths may seem to give you a temporary advantage, however it will almost certainly "bite you in the ass" later on. As you seem to have already discovered.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:30:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Andrew Cowan</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2004-02-24T03:30:19Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>secure path  &amp; kernel versions</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199856#M73350</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;  anyone knows why SP 4 linux is so tight on kernel requirements? Wont even install on the latest redhat kernel update.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Right now:&lt;BR /&gt;Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 AS, Errata Kernel 2.4.9-e25-smp,&lt;BR /&gt;2.4.9-e27-smp, 2.4.9-e25 enterprise, 2.4.9-e27 enterprise&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;RH Enterprise 3 doesnt seem to be supported either ( 2.4.21+ kernel ).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;What is supposed to happen if a critical security patch is out ? Can I install on a supported kernel and update it afterward ?  &lt;BR /&gt;Any HP insider has any timeframe for Enterprise 3 support ??</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:44:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199856#M73350</guid>
      <dc:creator>Olivier Drouin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-02-23T14:44:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: secure path  &amp; kernel versions</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199857#M73351</link>
      <description>Secure Path 3.0C will support RHEL 3 and SUSE 8 SP3.  ETA in March.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:54:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199857#M73351</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bill Wood_3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-02-23T14:54:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: secure path  &amp; kernel versions</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199858#M73352</link>
      <description>This is one of the reasons i prefer not to select solutions that are not by default usable from the kernel.&lt;BR /&gt;For one it is a major pain updating the kernels en recompiling those modules in, if they still work with the new kernel.&lt;BR /&gt;Secondly you taint your kernel and rh or the kernel hackers will become very hestitant to support you when things go wrong.&lt;BR /&gt;Now 2.6 has the possibility to load modules independent on the kernel version etc, so at least that will save us admins a lot of work in cases we do need it.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:38:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199858#M73352</guid>
      <dc:creator>dirk dierickx</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-02-24T02:38:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: secure path  &amp; kernel versions</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199859#M73353</link>
      <description>I agree 100% with Dirk. Deviating from the standard open-source release paths may seem to give you a temporary advantage, however it will almost certainly "bite you in the ass" later on. As you seem to have already discovered.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:30:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199859#M73353</guid>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Cowan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-02-24T03:30:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: secure path  &amp; kernel versions</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199860#M73354</link>
      <description>I dont think your arguments apply here guys. &lt;BR /&gt;It is not a major pain to update a *stock* redhat kernel with *stock* HP drivers, really not.&lt;BR /&gt;HP/redhat will support HPs modules even if they are tainted ( I pay a ****load for support).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I just want to know what will be the HP strategy when redhat release critical security updates... I will open a ticket, thanks anyway.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:16:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-linux/secure-path-amp-kernel-versions/m-p/3199860#M73354</guid>
      <dc:creator>Olivier Drouin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-02-24T09:16:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

