I like not paying taxes as much as anyone, but I have to admit it's not fair that a local retailer gets taxes, but if I order from an Internet site, it's not taxes.
Personally, I've always liked the idea of moving toward a national sales tax as a replacement for the income tax. It would do wonders for saving and privacy (since you would no longer be required to report income). Of course, the problem is that recent administrations (read: Democrats) wanted to add the national sales tax, which would totally suck.
By the year 2000, we'll all have flying cars, video phones, and -- as shown in the Bugs Bunny cartoon from circa 1945 -- hunting rifles that shoot lightning bolts.
Just what is considered "futuristic" looking nowadays? When you look at old comic books, etc, it's bright, gleeming stainless steel and glass. Nowadays, it seems like gray, dark, dank Bladerunner-style is "futuristic". Probably says something about society.:)
On the other hand, Star Trek-style futurism looks like a Doctor's waiting room, with a few extra technological features.
I fully understand and respect other country's rights to pass laws that may be in conflict with the laws of the USA.
However, their complaint goes way beyond that. They not only want us to respect their laws, but to enforce them as well. That's unacceptable.
There is a simple solution: they should simply pass laws making it illegal for their citizens to perform the actions they find objectionable.
Don't like Nazi songs on Napster? Make it illegal to download them. Don't like Nazi stuff on Yahoo? Make it illegal for the citizens to view the pages on Yahoo.
Enforcement, you say? That's their problem. If they want to make it illegal, then they should have the guts to put the responsibility on their own citizens, not on US companies. The US companies are not forcing the material down to the browser, the citizen has to request the material.
Come on, Germany and France. If you're going to pass censorship laws, then have the stomach to enforce them.
Actually, I ended up using JDOM (www.jdom.org). The "stream"-oriented parsers like SAX are probably good for some things, but for most things they are a TOTAL pain in the ass and next to worthless.
I would recommend anyone doing anything with XML to check out JDOM. Basically, it parses XML into a data structure on which you can use simple access methods (both retrieve and store).
A true white hat wouldn't try to break into your honey pot unless he knew it was a honey pot, and he knew it was OK for him to try (either by being told, asking, or seeing a public announcment).
That's certainly one definition, but sorry to say, not the only one. As the original poster pointed out, there is another class of hacker that attempts to exploit security holes (often without permission), but doesn't do any damage and reports the exploit. I'm reminded of that Intel guy who got into a lot of trouble. He was clearly not a black hat, but he broke security without permission but was widely regarded as a "white hat" (I'll leave whether the action of justified or not to another discussion).
Actually, it's good when your honey pot gets broken into, and your main machines don't.
You're confusing the issue. There are three possible security states:
1. No breaks in security
2. Break in security, but they hit the honey pot
3. Break in security, and they hit the main system.
Clearly these are in order of our preference. It's better to have the honey pot hit than the main system, but best of all is not have any security breeches at all.
A honey pot that doesn't get cracked proves very little, and shouldn't make you feel much safer.
That's absurd! Do I feel less safe when my canary continues to live in the coal mine, because there might be bad air pockets that I don't know about? Should I feel better when the canary dies because "now I know where a bad air pocket is"?
By your logic, I should feel ultra-safe when my honey pot is cracked once a day! And even safer when it's cracked once an hour!
I think if my honey pot went a year without being cracked (despite numerous attempt), it would say something. This is like saying that it's good when your software is ultra-buggy, because that helps you track down more bugs.
I can just imagine you talking to your boss: "Hey boss, good news and bad news: The good news is we were cracked 11 times last week." "WHAT?? What's the bad news???" "We haven't been cracked at all this week."
When I said 15 hours on the 'id' story, I mean it came up 15 hours after it said "accepted"! I actually sent an e-mail to Taco, and one of the other Slashdot guys answered me and says that it sometimes takes a long time to appear on the front page. I don't know why, and he didn't explain it.:)
Just for the record, 3 out of 4 articles I've submitted have been accepted. However, sometimes it take a while to get posted (like, the 'id' story took about 15 hours). Someone probably submitted it before you did, and it finally got posted.
My submissions:
2000-09-11 16:57:24 Startup Claims 16.8M Pixel Camera Sensor (articles,tech) (accepted)
2000-10-08 16:48:59 XML Parsers (askslashdot,java) (rejected)
2000-10-09 23:34:50 Proton Polymer Battery (articles,news) (accepted)
2000-12-07 18:54:41 id on Linux: "disappointing" and "support nightmar (articles,linux) (accepted)
[note that they edited my 'id' submission headline... heh]
To all of you that whine about getting constantly rejected, it's simple -- just don't submit lame articles.:)
I was about to give up, but I'm feeling masochistic tonight, so let me give it one more shot.
I understand the overall point of his post. However, I focused on one somewhat tangental implication that he was making, namely, that there exist "white hat crackers" that are morally different from "black hat crackers", and thus they should be treated differently, in case the managers of the honey pots intended to prosecute break-ins (which personally I think is a good idea).
That's the point I took issue with. I don't think there is any difference between white/black hat hackers, except for motivation, and I don't care about motivation.
To summarize -- my point is about black hat hackers versus white hat hackers, and the fact that I don't recognize the distinction. That point is independent of any honey pot issues.
A honey pot is a machine that is intended to be broken into -- thus a black hat cracker breaking into one isn't bad at all, so long as you can log what he does and analyze it.
By the way, the purpose of a "honey pot" is not to be broken into, any more than a canary's purpose is to die in a coal mine. They're just indicators of a problem. Obviously it's bad when it gets broken into, because that indicates you have a security problem.
Maybe to you, but I don't think that was the original poster's intent. That's why he said "honey pot", not something else. As I said, what you quoted contradicts your claim that he wasn't talking about honey pots.
You insist on trying to tell me what my point is. I don't care whether his point was about honey pots or not, my point is that I'm taking issue with the whole question of whether a "white hat cracker" is good or not.
If it makes you happy, then feel free to limit my point to saying that yes, a white hat cracker breaking into a honey pot is just as bad as a black hat cracker breaking into one. But my point is broader than that.
As to missing the tag, my excuse is sleep deprivation.
I wasn't mocking the lack of the </b> tag, I was mocking your use of the bold tag to scream your point as if someone wouldn't be able to understand it otherwise.
Oh, then why did the line you quoted include the line "honey pot"?
OK, let's take this slowly. The original poster's comment that I quoted was:
Also, suppose you had a white hat cracker. Would anyone running a honey pot care if the cracker broke in and plugged all the holes to prevent the kiddies from doing some real damage?
The key concept that I pulled out is the implication that we shouldn't care if "white hat crackers" break into systems and "plug all the holes". Whether it's a honey pot system or not is irrelevent; the point is that he implies that we should look favorably upon people who break into systems with goodness and purity in their heart in order to fix them.
Apparently you are not clued in to a concept called "context". I was responding to the poster's point (and his implied "roving band of do-gooder white hat 'crackers'"), not the overall "honey pot" article.
Also, suppose you had a white hat cracker. Would anyone running a honey pot care if the cracker broke in and plugged all the holes to prevent the kiddies from doing some real damage?
There's no such thing as a "white hat cracker". Quite frankly, I don't care if you find a vulnerability in my system. STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY SYSTEM. Send me an e-mail, fine, thank you. But I don't need roving bands of do-gooders changing my system (and more than likely screwing it up in the process).
Put it this way: If I happen to leave the windows open in my house, I do not want strangers "for my own good" climbing in the window, poking around, checking the locks, and then "fixing" anything they find. I'm going to throw their butt in jail just like any other criminal.
What you just wrote bears so little resemblence to what I actually wrote that I'm a little stunned. Why don't you go back and read it, and compare it to what you wrote (objectively), and I think you'll learn a little something about yourself.
Look, I got picked on throughout school. I know it sucks (Believe me, I know). But I have also faced up to the fact that 99% of it I brought on myself. Proof? There were plenty of smart kids in my school that didn't get picked on (and you know some yourself). What is the difference between them and you/I?
Which brings up another question: Why are smart people so poor at analyzing themselves? Why do they hide in these excuses that it's "the teacher's fault" or go to extremes like "oh, so what you're saying is that it's OK to make fun of mentally disabled people."?
I am extremely thankful that I was able to look inward and figure out where my social problems came from and do something about them. But I find it really strange that it's so rare that smart people are able to fix themselves.
Sorry, I don't mean to single you out, but Slashdot is a lens on exactly this type of individual. And you're post was a clearer lens than most.
The point is most of those people at his age are not particularly likely to be very ACCEPTING of his smarts, and will very likely go out of their way to make sure it's clear to him that being smart is bad.
And that's a lesson that too many smart people never learn. No, not the one you're talking about. It's this: No one like a smart-ass. It's usually (although not always) the smart kid's fault when he gets picked on. It's one thing to be smart, but it's another thing to act arrogant and be a "know it all".
It's like an athlete who is a ball hog. They're so much better than everyone else that they feel they need to make every play, and eventually no one like to play with them. Then he goes home thinking, "well, they're just jealous because I'm so much better". No, they're not having fun! They want to participate, too.
If I could be a little immodest for a minute. I used to be a smart-ass. I used to take great pride in solving every math problem in my head before the other kids applied pencil to paper. But eventually I learned that I could slow down and not announce every answer in an arrogant fashion, and could let others participate. Wow! I suddenly got a lot more popular, because I didn't spoil everyone's fun.
Now I just confine my arrogance and "know it all" attitude to Slashdot.:)
Take him to a basketball game. Take him to the beach. Teach him to throw a football. Take him to some same-age playgroups. Rough-house with him.
I know that you're a tutor, not a big-brother, but I'm using this to make a slightly different point.
The kid is already far, far ahead in mental ability. How much faster does he need to be pushed? By all means, he should study what he's interested in, and move forward at his own pace.
But I've seen too many prodigys with adults around them who want to push them as far as possible, while neglecting other important attributes, like socialization, athletics, and other "non-mental" pursuits.
It's the opposite problem from the jock who's so great at athletics that everyone lets him slide on academics. Then he ends his athletic career, broke, stupid and becomes a bartender.
When kids have a gift (whether academic or athletic), it should be developed, no question. But other parts of life should not be neglected. Gifted kids have lots of time. At the end of their life, they're not going to regret failing to graduate from college at 18 rather than 17. Hopefully, they won't regret a lifetime of loneliness because of broken social skills.
The wise programmer uses the right tool for the right job, and an interactive debugger is usually the wrong tool.
Well said. There are definitely times and places for debuggers (particularly assembly language programming). And the other poster had it 180 degrees backward -- it's the newbies who have grown up with debuggers and IDEs. It's the old hands that have learned not to let it suck away endless amounts of time.
And that's the point -- it's not about how easy it is to develop something, it's about how much time does it take? There is no question that debuggers make things easier, but I've found that it makes development far, far slower.
Personally, I despise IDEs because they always slow me down. I've noticed that the best programmers never seem to use them. I think putting well-chosen printf's in the code forces you to think about what you're actually writing, rather than writing a bunch of garbage and then using the debugger to bail you out.
A lot of people think I'm crazy when I say this, but both Linus Torvalds and Gostling have said similar things.
I've developed both ways, and there is no doubt in my mind that it takes me less time to develop when I just use printf's. But -- it does take more discipline, and that's probably why you see so many mediocre programmers slaves to the debugger and IDE.
vi, make and printf (with the occasional grep and find) -- that's my debugging environment, and I'm known for my development speed and code quality.
No, you are living in ignorance. Hacking and cracking are the same thing, but this dumb "cracking" word was invented later. Check the Jargon File, sense 8:
[deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.
Note the word 'deprecated'. ESR may have decided to deprecate this sense of the word, but I have not, and I don't recognize his authority to do so. That was a political move, not a factual move.
Email is worthless if we cannot trust that the apparent author is the true one.
That's just silly. I've got news for you... right now, you have no ability to know if the apparent offer of a postal mail is the true one, with the exception of certified mail. Surprise! You can do the same thing with e-mail by attaching a signature.
Come on! I understand the frustration with spamming, but this is a relatively harmless, non-violent crime. A lot of murderers and rapists don't get 7 years!
Put it this way; this is just another variance on hacking*. How would you like it if a hacker got 7 years for breaking into a computer system?
*The proper word is "hacking". I don't recognize the 'c' word.
Because Intel puts out a new CPU that behaves differently given the same set of instructions, thus causing a failure in the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel is brittle?
No, the CPU is fine, it's the Kernel that's broken. The CPU operates exactly the same with the same set of instructions. The Kernel is just bombing because it doesn't like the CPU ID.
Slashdot Mirror
I like not paying taxes as much as anyone, but I have to admit it's not fair that a local retailer gets taxes, but if I order from an Internet site, it's not taxes.
Personally, I've always liked the idea of moving toward a national sales tax as a replacement for the income tax. It would do wonders for saving and privacy (since you would no longer be required to report income). Of course, the problem is that recent administrations (read: Democrats) wanted to add the national sales tax, which would totally suck.
--
By the year 2000, we'll all have flying cars, video phones, and -- as shown in the Bugs Bunny cartoon from circa 1945 -- hunting rifles that shoot lightning bolts.
Just what is considered "futuristic" looking nowadays? When you look at old comic books, etc, it's bright, gleeming stainless steel and glass. Nowadays, it seems like gray, dark, dank Bladerunner-style is "futuristic". Probably says something about society. :)
On the other hand, Star Trek-style futurism looks like a Doctor's waiting room, with a few extra technological features.
--
I fully understand and respect other country's rights to pass laws that may be in conflict with the laws of the USA.
However, their complaint goes way beyond that. They not only want us to respect their laws, but to enforce them as well. That's unacceptable.
There is a simple solution: they should simply pass laws making it illegal for their citizens to perform the actions they find objectionable.
Don't like Nazi songs on Napster? Make it illegal to download them. Don't like Nazi stuff on Yahoo? Make it illegal for the citizens to view the pages on Yahoo.
Enforcement, you say? That's their problem. If they want to make it illegal, then they should have the guts to put the responsibility on their own citizens, not on US companies. The US companies are not forcing the material down to the browser, the citizen has to request the material.
Come on, Germany and France. If you're going to pass censorship laws, then have the stomach to enforce them.
--
Actually, I ended up using JDOM (www.jdom.org). The "stream"-oriented parsers like SAX are probably good for some things, but for most things they are a TOTAL pain in the ass and next to worthless.
I would recommend anyone doing anything with XML to check out JDOM. Basically, it parses XML into a data structure on which you can use simple access methods (both retrieve and store).
--
A true white hat wouldn't try to break into your honey pot unless he knew it was a honey pot, and he knew it was OK for him to try (either by being told, asking, or seeing a public announcment).
That's certainly one definition, but sorry to say, not the only one. As the original poster pointed out, there is another class of hacker that attempts to exploit security holes (often without permission), but doesn't do any damage and reports the exploit. I'm reminded of that Intel guy who got into a lot of trouble. He was clearly not a black hat, but he broke security without permission but was widely regarded as a "white hat" (I'll leave whether the action of justified or not to another discussion).
Actually, it's good when your honey pot gets broken into, and your main machines don't.
You're confusing the issue. There are three possible security states:
1. No breaks in security
2. Break in security, but they hit the honey pot
3. Break in security, and they hit the main system.
Clearly these are in order of our preference. It's better to have the honey pot hit than the main system, but best of all is not have any security breeches at all.
A honey pot that doesn't get cracked proves very little, and shouldn't make you feel much safer.
That's absurd! Do I feel less safe when my canary continues to live in the coal mine, because there might be bad air pockets that I don't know about? Should I feel better when the canary dies because "now I know where a bad air pocket is"?
By your logic, I should feel ultra-safe when my honey pot is cracked once a day! And even safer when it's cracked once an hour!
I think if my honey pot went a year without being cracked (despite numerous attempt), it would say something. This is like saying that it's good when your software is ultra-buggy, because that helps you track down more bugs.
I can just imagine you talking to your boss: "Hey boss, good news and bad news: The good news is we were cracked 11 times last week." "WHAT?? What's the bad news???" "We haven't been cracked at all this week."
--
When I said 15 hours on the 'id' story, I mean it came up 15 hours after it said "accepted"! I actually sent an e-mail to Taco, and one of the other Slashdot guys answered me and says that it sometimes takes a long time to appear on the front page. I don't know why, and he didn't explain it. :)
--
Just for the record, 3 out of 4 articles I've submitted have been accepted. However, sometimes it take a while to get posted (like, the 'id' story took about 15 hours). Someone probably submitted it before you did, and it finally got posted.
My submissions:
2000-09-11 16:57:24 Startup Claims 16.8M Pixel Camera Sensor (articles,tech) (accepted)
2000-10-08 16:48:59 XML Parsers (askslashdot,java) (rejected)
2000-10-09 23:34:50 Proton Polymer Battery (articles,news) (accepted)
2000-12-07 18:54:41 id on Linux: "disappointing" and "support nightmar (articles,linux) (accepted)
[note that they edited my 'id' submission headline... heh]
To all of you that whine about getting constantly rejected, it's simple -- just don't submit lame articles. :)
--
I was about to give up, but I'm feeling masochistic tonight, so let me give it one more shot.
I understand the overall point of his post. However, I focused on one somewhat tangental implication that he was making, namely, that there exist "white hat crackers" that are morally different from "black hat crackers", and thus they should be treated differently, in case the managers of the honey pots intended to prosecute break-ins (which personally I think is a good idea).
That's the point I took issue with. I don't think there is any difference between white/black hat hackers, except for motivation, and I don't care about motivation.
To summarize -- my point is about black hat hackers versus white hat hackers, and the fact that I don't recognize the distinction. That point is independent of any honey pot issues.
A honey pot is a machine that is intended to be broken into -- thus a black hat cracker breaking into one isn't bad at all, so long as you can log what he does and analyze it.
By the way, the purpose of a "honey pot" is not to be broken into, any more than a canary's purpose is to die in a coal mine. They're just indicators of a problem. Obviously it's bad when it gets broken into, because that indicates you have a security problem.
--
Maybe to you, but I don't think that was the original poster's intent. That's why he said "honey pot", not something else. As I said, what you quoted contradicts your claim that he wasn't talking about honey pots.
You insist on trying to tell me what my point is. I don't care whether his point was about honey pots or not, my point is that I'm taking issue with the whole question of whether a "white hat cracker" is good or not.
If it makes you happy, then feel free to limit my point to saying that yes, a white hat cracker breaking into a honey pot is just as bad as a black hat cracker breaking into one. But my point is broader than that.
--
By the way...
As to missing the tag, my excuse is sleep deprivation.
I wasn't mocking the lack of the </b> tag, I was mocking your use of the bold tag to scream your point as if someone wouldn't be able to understand it otherwise.
--
Oh, then why did the line you quoted include the line "honey pot"?
OK, let's take this slowly. The original poster's comment that I quoted was:
The key concept that I pulled out is the implication that we shouldn't care if "white hat crackers" break into systems and "plug all the holes". Whether it's a honey pot system or not is irrelevent; the point is that he implies that we should look favorably upon people who break into systems with goodness and purity in their heart in order to fix them.
--
Apparently you are not clued in to a concept called "context". I was responding to the poster's point (and his implied "roving band of do-gooder white hat 'crackers'"), not the overall "honey pot" article.
--
Also, suppose you had a white hat cracker. Would anyone running a honey pot care if the cracker broke in and plugged all the holes to prevent the kiddies from doing some real damage?
There's no such thing as a "white hat cracker". Quite frankly, I don't care if you find a vulnerability in my system. STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY SYSTEM. Send me an e-mail, fine, thank you. But I don't need roving bands of do-gooders changing my system (and more than likely screwing it up in the process).
Put it this way: If I happen to leave the windows open in my house, I do not want strangers "for my own good" climbing in the window, poking around, checking the locks, and then "fixing" anything they find. I'm going to throw their butt in jail just like any other criminal.
--
What you just wrote bears so little resemblence to what I actually wrote that I'm a little stunned. Why don't you go back and read it, and compare it to what you wrote (objectively), and I think you'll learn a little something about yourself.
Look, I got picked on throughout school. I know it sucks (Believe me, I know). But I have also faced up to the fact that 99% of it I brought on myself. Proof? There were plenty of smart kids in my school that didn't get picked on (and you know some yourself). What is the difference between them and you/I?
Which brings up another question: Why are smart people so poor at analyzing themselves? Why do they hide in these excuses that it's "the teacher's fault" or go to extremes like "oh, so what you're saying is that it's OK to make fun of mentally disabled people."?
I am extremely thankful that I was able to look inward and figure out where my social problems came from and do something about them. But I find it really strange that it's so rare that smart people are able to fix themselves.
Sorry, I don't mean to single you out, but Slashdot is a lens on exactly this type of individual. And you're post was a clearer lens than most.
--
The point is most of those people at his age are not particularly likely to be very ACCEPTING of his smarts, and will very likely go out of their way to make sure it's clear to him that being smart is bad.
And that's a lesson that too many smart people never learn. No, not the one you're talking about. It's this: No one like a smart-ass. It's usually (although not always) the smart kid's fault when he gets picked on. It's one thing to be smart, but it's another thing to act arrogant and be a "know it all".
It's like an athlete who is a ball hog. They're so much better than everyone else that they feel they need to make every play, and eventually no one like to play with them. Then he goes home thinking, "well, they're just jealous because I'm so much better". No, they're not having fun! They want to participate, too.
If I could be a little immodest for a minute. I used to be a smart-ass. I used to take great pride in solving every math problem in my head before the other kids applied pencil to paper. But eventually I learned that I could slow down and not announce every answer in an arrogant fashion, and could let others participate. Wow! I suddenly got a lot more popular, because I didn't spoil everyone's fun.
Now I just confine my arrogance and "know it all" attitude to Slashdot. :)
--
Take him to a basketball game. Take him to the beach. Teach him to throw a football. Take him to some same-age playgroups. Rough-house with him.
I know that you're a tutor, not a big-brother, but I'm using this to make a slightly different point.
The kid is already far, far ahead in mental ability. How much faster does he need to be pushed? By all means, he should study what he's interested in, and move forward at his own pace.
But I've seen too many prodigys with adults around them who want to push them as far as possible, while neglecting other important attributes, like socialization, athletics, and other "non-mental" pursuits.
It's the opposite problem from the jock who's so great at athletics that everyone lets him slide on academics. Then he ends his athletic career, broke, stupid and becomes a bartender.
When kids have a gift (whether academic or athletic), it should be developed, no question. But other parts of life should not be neglected. Gifted kids have lots of time. At the end of their life, they're not going to regret failing to graduate from college at 18 rather than 17. Hopefully, they won't regret a lifetime of loneliness because of broken social skills.
--
Robin William's" - Williams'
On a proper name, you use the full "apostrophe S". So you would use "Robin Williams's".
--
The wise programmer uses the right tool for the right job, and an interactive debugger is usually the wrong tool.
Well said. There are definitely times and places for debuggers (particularly assembly language programming). And the other poster had it 180 degrees backward -- it's the newbies who have grown up with debuggers and IDEs. It's the old hands that have learned not to let it suck away endless amounts of time.
And that's the point -- it's not about how easy it is to develop something, it's about how much time does it take? There is no question that debuggers make things easier, but I've found that it makes development far, far slower.
--
Personally, I despise IDEs because they always slow me down. I've noticed that the best programmers never seem to use them. I think putting well-chosen printf's in the code forces you to think about what you're actually writing, rather than writing a bunch of garbage and then using the debugger to bail you out.
A lot of people think I'm crazy when I say this, but both Linus Torvalds and Gostling have said similar things.
I've developed both ways, and there is no doubt in my mind that it takes me less time to develop when I just use printf's. But -- it does take more discipline, and that's probably why you see so many mediocre programmers slaves to the debugger and IDE.
vi, make and printf (with the occasional grep and find) -- that's my debugging environment, and I'm known for my development speed and code quality.
--
I can get 100,000 frames / second on Q3. Dammit, I can see the difference!!
--
No, you are living in ignorance. Hacking and cracking are the same thing, but this dumb "cracking" word was invented later. Check the Jargon File, sense 8:
Note the word 'deprecated'. ESR may have decided to deprecate this sense of the word, but I have not, and I don't recognize his authority to do so. That was a political move, not a factual move.
--
Email is worthless if we cannot trust that the apparent author is the true one.
That's just silly. I've got news for you... right now, you have no ability to know if the apparent offer of a postal mail is the true one, with the exception of certified mail. Surprise! You can do the same thing with e-mail by attaching a signature.
--
Come on! I understand the frustration with spamming, but this is a relatively harmless, non-violent crime. A lot of murderers and rapists don't get 7 years!
Put it this way; this is just another variance on hacking*. How would you like it if a hacker got 7 years for breaking into a computer system?
*The proper word is "hacking". I don't recognize the 'c' word.
--
remember moto did the same thing on a 68000 part. It was a 32 bit part with a 8 bit bus!
Actually, the 68000 had a 32 bit internal bus and a 16 bit external bus. The 68008 (which came out later) had an 8 bit external bus.
--
Because Intel puts out a new CPU that behaves differently given the same set of instructions, thus causing a failure in the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel is brittle?
No, the CPU is fine, it's the Kernel that's broken. The CPU operates exactly the same with the same set of instructions. The Kernel is just bombing because it doesn't like the CPU ID.
--