| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.6.27.5Stable kernel 2.6.27.5Posted Nov 9, 2008 16:11 UTC (Sun) by TRauMa (guest, #16483)In reply to: Stable kernel 2.6.27.5 by endecotp Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.27.5
Why don't you use a vendor kernel, ie. one from redhat or novell. That way you get update notices without any trace of humor and clear upgrade instructions (basically, "install this, now, security fixes"). If it troubles you that the *release notes* are too unprofessional for direct enterprise consumption, you really should be more worried about the kernel itself.
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel 2.6.27.5 Posted Nov 9, 2008 16:29 UTC (Sun) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> Why don't you use a vendor kernel, ie. one from redhat or novell.
what makes you think that all the world's needs can be satisfied with those kernels? clearly that's not the case.
Stable kernel 2.6.27.5 Posted Nov 9, 2008 17:31 UTC (Sun) by xorbe (subscriber, #3165) [Link]
If OP is in a position that he must roll out bleeding edge kernels, and he can't figure out what was fixed from kernel to kernel without being spoonfed endecotp-approved emails that accompany a kernel patch announcement...
World's needs? No. Enterprise needs? Sure. Posted Nov 9, 2008 17:32 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The fact is: nobody is interested in security. Not really. That's not what is selling. What you can sell (and for pretty hefty sum BTW) is perception of security. Vendor's kernels are perfect for this. As for real security... Nothing is designed for it: linux is not designed for security, hardware is not designed with security in mind, etc... Yes, there are some things which can be used to enforce some [small] degree of security, but real protection is exchanged for 15%, 10% sometimes even 1% of additional speed! I'm not even sure that's bad thing: sure OpenBSD is much better then Linux security-wise, but it can not be used as replacement because it's just too ineffective. If your OS can not process the data you want processed it does not matter if it's secure or not. Linux is learning this the hard way: Windows is chosen 9 times out of 10 instead of Linux because Linux (or rather set of programs available under Linux) is just not capable enough...
World's needs? No. Enterprise needs? Sure. Posted Nov 9, 2008 22:26 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> perception of security
Yeah, that's what's being sold, just like with all other products. But, if a security hole gets fixed, it still makes the reality of running that kernel more secure.
World's needs? No. Enterprise needs? Sure. Posted Nov 9, 2008 22:27 UTC (Sun) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]
That's not really too true. Security is very important to many people, just that as you move more into the corporate world, 'security' covers more aspects than purely hacker-proof. Unless your business is security, you're often not going to know it was well as someone else whose is, and you become more susceptible to marketing drives and "common knowledge" (which is fed by those who have the money to make what they want know to be "common knowledge").
There is plenty of interest in security, which is why so much /is/ designed with security in mind. But people have to learn, we're not born with the knowledge that we choose to live by or ignore. Most people just want it to be taken care of for them, and will pay, as learning how to secure your website, your computer, your car, your home, your communications... is a bit much for one person. Better to have different people specialise in different areas.
Stable kernel 2.6.27.5 Posted Nov 9, 2008 23:05 UTC (Sun) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
I'm not remotely concerned about how "professional" it seems. I am not an "enterprise" person. For example, I'm not much concerned about things like spelling mistakes. I just want to be able to actually understand it.
|
|||||||||||||