> On May 15, 2018, at 11:55 PM, Stijn De Weirdt <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi stephen, > >> There isn’t a flaw in that argument, but where the security experts >> are concerned there is no argument. > we have gpfs clients hosts where users can login, we can't update those. > that is a certain worry.
The original statement from Marc was about dedicated hardware for storage and/or file serving. If that’s not the use case, then neither his logic nor my support of it apply. >> >> Apparently this time Red Hat just told all of their RHEL 7.4 >> customers to upgrade to RHEL 7.5, rather than back-porting the >> security patches. So this time the retirement to upgrade >> distributions is much worse than normal. > there's no 'this time', this is the default rhel support model. only > with EUS you get patches for non-latest minor releases. > > stijn > You are correct! I did a quick check and most of my customers are enterprise-y, and many of them seem to have EUS. I thought it was standard, but it is not. I could be mixing Red Hat up with another Linux vendor at this point… Liberty, -- Stephen _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
