It's a simple path of logic. The problem is in the CPU, not in the kernel. The OS devs are only doing their job and in no way should be targeted in a lawsuit for fixing a security hole they didn't create. That is the only point I made. Anything else is misinterpretation of what I said.
First, people play what they want to play... or what everyone else is playing to fit in. Ads will encourage them, but definitely don't define what gets played. That assumption alone tells me that you're not exactly worth the effort here. However, yes.. large titles that start out as a console release are less likely to have higher CPU requirements. There are quite a few PC games, which would be the segment of games affected by issues with the CPU in a PC, that heavily rely on the CPU. Further.. If you look at minimum CPU requirements for PC versions of games that are on console.. often times you'll see the min requirements are higher than the actual CPU of the console. So, obviously... it's not a direct comparison.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Intel designed and produced the CPU. The OS devs are responsible only for the OS. If there is a flaw in the Intel CPU, that is between "you" and Intel. The OS devs patching a security hole in the CPU should not leave them open to a lawsuit when the only way to patch it slows down the performance of the system.
If you're provided three options, and only three options, you're forced to pick one. Inaction is a choice that would force at least one of the options.
From what I can tell, this bug and fix greatly affects businesses. If Intel wants to keep a place in the server market, they pretty much have to fix the issue. As to the whole lawsuit, it'll be tough. Their warranty doesn't cover design defects. I would venture there is likely wording elsewhere protecting them from legal action. It'll be an uphill battle.
Design defects are already not covered under their warranty. I'm not saying a lawsuit couldn't happen, but you wouldn't be starting from a position of power.
The problem is, if it can be fixed in microcode... Intel would likely alienate a lot of businesses by pulling that. Intel letting major business take a 30% performance hit, so Intel can make money off of their own flaw doesn't sound like it would fly. Just because Intel doesn't have a legal responsibility to resolve the problem, doesn't mean it isn't in their best interest as a company.
But, Intel isn't the one making the change to the kernel. The change is being done by the kernel devs to fix an issue. They were suggesting a lawsuit for cutting performance of the CPU. As Intel isn't slowing down the CPU, that means they are suggesting a lawsuit against the companies behind the OSes. If they were suggesting a lawsuit against Intel, it was poorly worded.. but a different story.
You're over generalizing. You're also assuming people are playing games that are console ports. I play a few games that are already CPU limited. There are also a few popular titles that are cpu intensive. PUBG being a big one right now. I'm not saying this fix is going to make it worse, as I don't know. But, a huge hit to CPU performance would make a huge impact on those games.
I'm unsure which "they" you're referencing here, so I'm not sure what point you're wanting to make. The problem is in the CPU. The kernel devs as a whole are not responsible for the problem. They're responsible for providing a stable/secure system. If they don't patch the problem with the kernel software, they're intentionally leaving people vulnerable. Unfortunately, given Intel's rather large lead in the CPU market, this is going to negatively impact a lot of people.
Microsoft/linux kernel devs/etc are not the ones at fault. They're working around an issue in the CPU. Using your analogy, they didn't design the car. They're just forcing you to either slow down, not drive on their roads, or buy a different car.
I wasn't there and that cam was terrible. I have no way to know what was going on in the situation, so I'm not going to defend them or rip on them. My point wasn't about this situation specifically. It was about the police response to swatting calls as a whole. If they don't take serious calls seriously, because they assume they are pranks, it'll also cause problems for them.
If they didn't treat the call as real, and it was real.... we'd be having an argument over why the cop didn't do their job. They're in a lose/lose situation when it comes to swatting.
It's not unique to Apple, and it's not necessarily nefarious either. New features, fancy transitions, and other whatnots all take a hit on performance and battery. Yes, some people would rather keep their old OS and the better performance. A lot would rather the new bells and whistles, so they can be like the newer phones without shelling out more money.
I was judging by 2 a. My opinion of Trump isn't high, but I wasn't referring to the mention of Trump. I was referring to the use of Merriam-Webster in the example in relation to the counter argument against the use of nazi. White nationalist, white supremacist, and racist all fit 2 a. However, racist is a broader term and only a subset of racists would qualify for the moniker.
I'm not taking a side, but just pointing out. According to Merriam-Webster... nazi would be a valid term to use in these cases. You picked a poor example.
Early adopter doesn't mean the tech itself has to be first of it's kind. It can, and does, apply even to new configurations of existing technology in hopes of it being an overall improvement.People that are first to buy iterative updates to existing tech are still early adopters. The same process plays out over many fields. Just because you don't want to believe it applies, doesn't make it any less accurate.
For apple? The face ID, the OLED screen, the new SoC. The SoC is exclusive to Apple. However, the SoC's for android go through similar update cycles. New SoC comes out, it goes in the flagship. Then, paired back SoCs are created based off it for midrange.. or the last gen's flagship SoC is used in midrange.
The term early adopter is valid in this case. It only applies to early customers of a product. The process in how early adopters support new development by purchasing early, also applies in this case. The price of the previous gen iPhone goes down when the new gen comes out. The tech used in the new gen is tested and either carried forward into the next, at a reduced cost. My word choice and argument wasn't flawed. I just didn't want to argue over semantics.
If you want to argue over semantics, that is fine. Enjoy being pedantic. Flagship phones, regardless of manufacturer, subsidize part costs. Often, the features and specs of todays flagship become tomorrow mid-range. So, if you want to call it something else.. that's fine. It's still the same damn principle.
First, it isn't my place to tell people what and how much to eat. Nor is it my place to attribute poor morals to their choice. Based on your attitude, I think you're a pretentious asshole.
As for the phone, you act like flagship Android devices aren't also expensive. I am a long term Android user, and find the prices on either side have gotten out of hand. That being said, the hardware performance of the iPhone X is superior to its competition. I'm not one to put much weight on synthetic benchmarks, so feel free to ignore that point. In my own personal, not heavy use, the iPhone X is faster and has a 50%-100% improved battery life compared to the Galaxy S8+. If I was a heavier user, I'm sure that gap would shrink. In my personal opinion, I find the hardware performance to be worth the cost difference. I don't claim that people should pay $1000 for the phone, just that it isn't a total ripoff if they do. The phone isn't without issues, but my issues with the iPhone solely stem from OS design decisions and not hardware.
Early adopters have historically supported development of technology so that the product can eventually become affordable. This process is no better or worse because it's a phone. You either like or dislike the new product. You either find the advancement worth the cost or you don't. There is absolutely no reason to call into question their moral standing because they don't agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
7 years old.
It's a simple path of logic. The problem is in the CPU, not in the kernel. The OS devs are only doing their job and in no way should be targeted in a lawsuit for fixing a security hole they didn't create. That is the only point I made. Anything else is misinterpretation of what I said.
First, people play what they want to play... or what everyone else is playing to fit in. Ads will encourage them, but definitely don't define what gets played. That assumption alone tells me that you're not exactly worth the effort here. However, yes.. large titles that start out as a console release are less likely to have higher CPU requirements. There are quite a few PC games, which would be the segment of games affected by issues with the CPU in a PC, that heavily rely on the CPU. Further.. If you look at minimum CPU requirements for PC versions of games that are on console.. often times you'll see the min requirements are higher than the actual CPU of the console. So, obviously... it's not a direct comparison.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Intel designed and produced the CPU. The OS devs are responsible only for the OS. If there is a flaw in the Intel CPU, that is between "you" and Intel. The OS devs patching a security hole in the CPU should not leave them open to a lawsuit when the only way to patch it slows down the performance of the system.
If you're provided three options, and only three options, you're forced to pick one. Inaction is a choice that would force at least one of the options.
From what I can tell, this bug and fix greatly affects businesses. If Intel wants to keep a place in the server market, they pretty much have to fix the issue. As to the whole lawsuit, it'll be tough. Their warranty doesn't cover design defects. I would venture there is likely wording elsewhere protecting them from legal action. It'll be an uphill battle.
Design defects are already not covered under their warranty. I'm not saying a lawsuit couldn't happen, but you wouldn't be starting from a position of power.
The problem is, if it can be fixed in microcode... Intel would likely alienate a lot of businesses by pulling that. Intel letting major business take a 30% performance hit, so Intel can make money off of their own flaw doesn't sound like it would fly. Just because Intel doesn't have a legal responsibility to resolve the problem, doesn't mean it isn't in their best interest as a company.
But, Intel isn't the one making the change to the kernel. The change is being done by the kernel devs to fix an issue. They were suggesting a lawsuit for cutting performance of the CPU. As Intel isn't slowing down the CPU, that means they are suggesting a lawsuit against the companies behind the OSes. If they were suggesting a lawsuit against Intel, it was poorly worded.. but a different story.
You're over generalizing. You're also assuming people are playing games that are console ports. I play a few games that are already CPU limited. There are also a few popular titles that are cpu intensive. PUBG being a big one right now. I'm not saying this fix is going to make it worse, as I don't know. But, a huge hit to CPU performance would make a huge impact on those games.
I'm unsure which "they" you're referencing here, so I'm not sure what point you're wanting to make. The problem is in the CPU. The kernel devs as a whole are not responsible for the problem. They're responsible for providing a stable/secure system. If they don't patch the problem with the kernel software, they're intentionally leaving people vulnerable. Unfortunately, given Intel's rather large lead in the CPU market, this is going to negatively impact a lot of people.
Microsoft/linux kernel devs/etc are not the ones at fault. They're working around an issue in the CPU. Using your analogy, they didn't design the car. They're just forcing you to either slow down, not drive on their roads, or buy a different car.
Technically speaking, they're making a change to the operating system kernel and how it operates, not reducing performance of the CPU.
I wasn't there and that cam was terrible. I have no way to know what was going on in the situation, so I'm not going to defend them or rip on them. My point wasn't about this situation specifically. It was about the police response to swatting calls as a whole. If they don't take serious calls seriously, because they assume they are pranks, it'll also cause problems for them.
If they didn't treat the call as real, and it was real.... we'd be having an argument over why the cop didn't do their job. They're in a lose/lose situation when it comes to swatting.
It's not unique to Apple, and it's not necessarily nefarious either. New features, fancy transitions, and other whatnots all take a hit on performance and battery. Yes, some people would rather keep their old OS and the better performance. A lot would rather the new bells and whistles, so they can be like the newer phones without shelling out more money.
I was judging by 2 a. My opinion of Trump isn't high, but I wasn't referring to the mention of Trump. I was referring to the use of Merriam-Webster in the example in relation to the counter argument against the use of nazi. White nationalist, white supremacist, and racist all fit 2 a. However, racist is a broader term and only a subset of racists would qualify for the moniker.
Especially when the letter J has an apple leaf.
I'm not taking a side, but just pointing out. According to Merriam-Webster... nazi would be a valid term to use in these cases. You picked a poor example.
Early adopter doesn't mean the tech itself has to be first of it's kind. It can, and does, apply even to new configurations of existing technology in hopes of it being an overall improvement.People that are first to buy iterative updates to existing tech are still early adopters. The same process plays out over many fields. Just because you don't want to believe it applies, doesn't make it any less accurate.
For apple? The face ID, the OLED screen, the new SoC. The SoC is exclusive to Apple. However, the SoC's for android go through similar update cycles. New SoC comes out, it goes in the flagship. Then, paired back SoCs are created based off it for midrange.. or the last gen's flagship SoC is used in midrange.
The term early adopter is valid in this case. It only applies to early customers of a product. The process in how early adopters support new development by purchasing early, also applies in this case. The price of the previous gen iPhone goes down when the new gen comes out. The tech used in the new gen is tested and either carried forward into the next, at a reduced cost. My word choice and argument wasn't flawed. I just didn't want to argue over semantics.
If you want to argue over semantics, that is fine. Enjoy being pedantic. Flagship phones, regardless of manufacturer, subsidize part costs. Often, the features and specs of todays flagship become tomorrow mid-range. So, if you want to call it something else.. that's fine. It's still the same damn principle.
First, it isn't my place to tell people what and how much to eat. Nor is it my place to attribute poor morals to their choice. Based on your attitude, I think you're a pretentious asshole.
As for the phone, you act like flagship Android devices aren't also expensive. I am a long term Android user, and find the prices on either side have gotten out of hand. That being said, the hardware performance of the iPhone X is superior to its competition. I'm not one to put much weight on synthetic benchmarks, so feel free to ignore that point. In my own personal, not heavy use, the iPhone X is faster and has a 50%-100% improved battery life compared to the Galaxy S8+. If I was a heavier user, I'm sure that gap would shrink. In my personal opinion, I find the hardware performance to be worth the cost difference. I don't claim that people should pay $1000 for the phone, just that it isn't a total ripoff if they do. The phone isn't without issues, but my issues with the iPhone solely stem from OS design decisions and not hardware.
Early adopters have historically supported development of technology so that the product can eventually become affordable. This process is no better or worse because it's a phone. You either like or dislike the new product. You either find the advancement worth the cost or you don't. There is absolutely no reason to call into question their moral standing because they don't agree with you.