It was a stupid mistake, yes, but it was smart to fix it as quickly as possible. I can't say I don't enjoy seeing their legal beagles squirm a bit. Lawyers always think they know how to run the tech industry and they are always wrong.
they've been doing this for over a decade, knowingly putting out flawed CPUs just to beat the performance charts.
Intel has done many slimy things, but I don't think that is one of them. Putting out flawed CPUs, yes, but knowingly... I doubt it. AMD was lucky on this one, or maybe somebody at AMD actually did realize the security ramifications of the interaction between speculative execution and protection levels. If so then they richy deserve bragging rights, I would really enjoy hearing the details whole story. But I doubt it happened.
It's good for Intel to be seen at work on the issue. Bad that it's basically impossible to fix in microcode without losing massive performance. Bad luck that the issue exists in the first place. Good for AMD as you say, but even without this AMD was already the sweet spot for me, and getting sweeter methinks.
Intel needs to fix this at the transistor level, that will take months for the 14nm fabs and who knows how much additional delay it means for 10nm. Just copying AMD's design would likely hit a patent minefield. If I was Intel, at this point I would bury the hatchet and license at least part of AMD's speculative execution design. Given that Intel already hired Ryzen's lead architect, maybe that's exactly what is happening.
This whole fiasco is just the result of some overzealous minion getting a bit too creative with the creative license writing. It should be put down firmly by people whose business it is to do so (like Bruce Perens) and we should all move on.
Neither did DRUMF's. Ol small hands in chief's gonna go to PRISON for TREASON.
More likely, for financial crimes such as money laundering. Nobody in their right mind seriously believes he's not a traitor in thrall to the Russians, but making the charges stick would be a long shot. Financial malfeasance is a slam dunk.
Now cue Russian astroturfer downmods, and let this post form part of the indictment.
The power of faith is a really big deal here, it means the astronauts can go with half the fuel and the missing thrust can be made up by the Hand of God.
Intel asks a judge to subpoena someone from the EFF and ask them who the friend is that violated the license.
The friend turns out to be a lawyer working for EFF. This is the raison d'etre for EFF, this is precisely how they get donations and entertain themselves. Intel is highly unlikely to go as far as a subpoena or any other such wankery, it would be highly embarrassing for them. This whole fiasco is just the result of some overzealous minion getting a bit too creative with the creative license writing. It should be put down firmly by people whose business it is to do so (like Bruce Perens) and we should all move on.
this is both to cover Apple's costs of billing/payment processing, refunds, etc (Because they require all the billing be done through Apple), AND to provide Apple profit in whatever amount of profit Apple thinks the market will bear.
This is where antitrust watchdogs get interested, because of "market power". You're clear on that, right? If not, then please bring yourself up to speed before replying.
Anyone who trusted Intel or IBM before this was a tool, but anyone who trusts Intel or IBM now is a moron.
I wouldn't got that far, I can see how this vulnerability could be overlooked before it became a widely researched thing. I would say it convincingly demonstrates that neither Intel nor IBM is infallible. But we already knew that, after all they are just populated with a bunch of real life schmucks just like you and me. Mistakes happen. Maybe they should keep that in mind for their next design.
BTW, is there anybody stupid enough to trust a monopolist? Oh right.
You know that you aren't a CE. Stop lying to everyone and yourself by injecting falsehoods into a discussion about CE.
Wow, you have serious issues, you need to learn some respect. And you are spouting nonsense. Physical vs logical indeed, thanks for your own private definitions, I'm sure everyone in the industry will appreciate those.
OK, so a friend runs the benchmarks and EFF publishes them. EFF notifies Intel that they have done so and that their third party software license stipulation is unenforceable. Hilarity ensues.
Four posts back: "Choosing Javascript on server side really should be a firing offense". Two posts back: "I was comparing Go to Node.js, remember?" Did you really just do what you did? Are you really that wrapped up in yourself?
Interesting and fanciful legal theory that some crack addict in Intel's legal department put forth. How can any processor maker control what somebody does with their computer? Well that is the issue of course. Intel so obviously in the wrong. I say, rub their noses in it more than a little bit.
One person downloads and applies the patch, another runs the benchmarks. Why is this complicated? In the worst case, somebody posts the results anonymously.
Intel is definitely wrong here, legal thuggery notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
This was utterly stupid of them
It was a stupid mistake, yes, but it was smart to fix it as quickly as possible. I can't say I don't enjoy seeing their legal beagles squirm a bit. Lawyers always think they know how to run the tech industry and they are always wrong.
they've been doing this for over a decade, knowingly putting out flawed CPUs just to beat the performance charts.
Intel has done many slimy things, but I don't think that is one of them. Putting out flawed CPUs, yes, but knowingly... I doubt it. AMD was lucky on this one, or maybe somebody at AMD actually did realize the security ramifications of the interaction between speculative execution and protection levels. If so then they richy deserve bragging rights, I would really enjoy hearing the details whole story. But I doubt it happened.
It's good for Intel to be seen at work on the issue. Bad that it's basically impossible to fix in microcode without losing massive performance. Bad luck that the issue exists in the first place. Good for AMD as you say, but even without this AMD was already the sweet spot for me, and getting sweeter methinks.
Intel needs to fix this at the transistor level, that will take months for the 14nm fabs and who knows how much additional delay it means for 10nm. Just copying AMD's design would likely hit a patent minefield. If I was Intel, at this point I would bury the hatchet and license at least part of AMD's speculative execution design. Given that Intel already hired Ryzen's lead architect, maybe that's exactly what is happening.
Slashdot may be a bully pulpit...
More accurately, TheReg was the bully pulpit, Slashdot was an amplifier.
Slashdot may be a bully pulpit, but Bruce Perens desrves the credit.
Seconded.
This whole fiasco is just the result of some overzealous minion getting a bit too creative with the creative license writing. It should be put down firmly by people whose business it is to do so (like Bruce Perens) and we should all move on.
Well there ya go.
It's also much better for an organization such as the EFF to do it, since they're well-prepared for the fight, instead of some random Slashdot reader.
What makes you think there are no EFF members randomly reading Slashdot?
You are right. But "if".
Hopefully, she'll be out in 3 years... A true national heroine, alerting the media of foreign meddling in US elections.
There's a good chance she may pass the Trump family on the way in.
Who mods up a hateful comment like that? Oh right.
Neither did DRUMF's. Ol small hands in chief's gonna go to PRISON for TREASON.
More likely, for financial crimes such as money laundering. Nobody in their right mind seriously believes he's not a traitor in thrall to the Russians, but making the charges stick would be a long shot. Financial malfeasance is a slam dunk.
Now cue Russian astroturfer downmods, and let this post form part of the indictment.
8. Mandatory steam punk attire.
I propose we send them first to see if it's safe.
I'm trying to figure out how to work Stormy Daniels into this, and I just can't do it.
The power of faith is a really big deal here, it means the astronauts can go with half the fuel and the missing thrust can be made up by the Hand of God.
Intel asks a judge to subpoena someone from the EFF and ask them who the friend is that violated the license.
The friend turns out to be a lawyer working for EFF. This is the raison d'etre for EFF, this is precisely how they get donations and entertain themselves. Intel is highly unlikely to go as far as a subpoena or any other such wankery, it would be highly embarrassing for them. This whole fiasco is just the result of some overzealous minion getting a bit too creative with the creative license writing. It should be put down firmly by people whose business it is to do so (like Bruce Perens) and we should all move on.
this is both to cover Apple's costs of billing/payment processing, refunds, etc (Because they require all the billing be done through Apple), AND to provide Apple profit in whatever amount of profit Apple thinks the market will bear.
This is where antitrust watchdogs get interested, because of "market power". You're clear on that, right? If not, then please bring yourself up to speed before replying.
Anyone who trusted Intel or IBM before this was a tool, but anyone who trusts Intel or IBM now is a moron.
I wouldn't got that far, I can see how this vulnerability could be overlooked before it became a widely researched thing. I would say it convincingly demonstrates that neither Intel nor IBM is infallible. But we already knew that, after all they are just populated with a bunch of real life schmucks just like you and me. Mistakes happen. Maybe they should keep that in mind for their next design.
BTW, is there anybody stupid enough to trust a monopolist? Oh right.
This was a parody post right? Please tell me it was parody.
And WTF is "die architecture"?
You know that you aren't a CE. Stop lying to everyone and yourself by injecting falsehoods into a discussion about CE.
Wow, you have serious issues, you need to learn some respect. And you are spouting nonsense. Physical vs logical indeed, thanks for your own private definitions, I'm sure everyone in the industry will appreciate those.
OK, so a friend runs the benchmarks and EFF publishes them. EFF notifies Intel that they have done so and that their third party software license stipulation is unenforceable. Hilarity ensues.
Four posts back: "Choosing Javascript on server side really should be a firing offense". Two posts back: "I was comparing Go to Node.js, remember?" Did you really just do what you did? Are you really that wrapped up in yourself?
Interesting and fanciful legal theory that some crack addict in Intel's legal department put forth. How can any processor maker control what somebody does with their computer? Well that is the issue of course. Intel so obviously in the wrong. I say, rub their noses in it more than a little bit.
Not what you're on about. AMD microcode updates have been solid as a rock in my personal experience.
One person downloads and applies the patch, another runs the benchmarks. Why is this complicated? In the worst case, somebody posts the results anonymously.
Intel is definitely wrong here, legal thuggery notwithstanding.