To further the car analogy, how about Intel just make a widget that doesn't require the driver to switch it on. Then when they fix the bug in future cars, they can tell the driver the widget is no longer needed.
This is essentially what Linus is proposing.
Instead Intel requires all drivers to use a widget that they have to switch on every time in order to prevent their cars from exploding, even long after Intel manages to fix the bug.
Linus seems to (begrudingly) accept the need for a temporary fix and there is already a temporary fix that works for current CPU's. The problem is Intel calling it a permanent fix and implying that every future CPU will be unsecure by default unless the OS flips a switch. That way Intel can blame any performance issues on the OS and still pretend their CPU is fast, even though it isn't when running in the secure mode that no sane person would ever use.
How about a car analogy:
Imagine all cars have two bugs in the gearbox that trigger on putting it in reverse certain ways.
But 1 makes a dashboard light blink one time. All car manufacturers have this bug, and they all fixed it when found.
Bug 2 makes your car explode. AMD and ARM knew about this and fixed it. It made their cars a bit slower, but atleast it wouldn't explode. Intel knew about it too, but they choose to ignore it. Their cars are a bit faster because of this. Intel fixed this by sending out a widget that stops the car from exploding, this widget does make Intel cars go slower. The widget doesn't fix it automatically, though! The driver has to switch the widget on every time he starts the car. If the driver doesn't switch the widget on, putting the car in reverse will still make it explode. Intel also says that this is how all future cars will be prevented from exploding; by adding this widget to every future car and requiring the driver to switch it on; it'll always be in "explode-on-reverse" mode by default. Intel does get to claim their car is faster by default though. Just don't put it in reverse.
As a bonus analogy; Intel claims both bugs are the same because they are both triggered by the same action, so therefore all car manufacturers are vulnerable to the exploding car bug.
IMHO, Intel is basically operating in PR-nightmare-cleanup-mode right now. They fucked up badly and are trying to lie, cheat and manipulate their way out of it. They are desperately trying to make it look like this is a generic problem (It's not; the AMD and ARM variants of these bugs are much less evil) and they are trying to safe face and shift blame however they can. Plain and simple truth is that Intel has knowingly made malicious choices and now they've been caught.
I went in expecting the usual Linus ranting, and although he doesn't disappoint in that department, he also has a valid point.
As I understand it, Intel proposes to build in a switch in future CPU's which tells the CPU to stop being insecure. The switch is going to be off by default and must be switched on by the kernel during boot. Intel proposes to let all future CPU's be insecure by default.
Music hasn't become worse; record labels have become more efficiënt. It's far cheaper to exploit starting musicians than to cultivate succesful musicians. It's far cheaper to dump a performer as soon as they get popular enough to start making demands and just get another one.
It seems like a company such as MS would benefit greatly from having a unique hardware configuration for each employee. It might be a PITA for their deployment systems but then again, they're selling those too!
You're completely right. Free speech does not mean newspapers, TV stations and the like are obliged to distribute that speech. In this case however, it's about banning the newspapers and TV stations themselves from deciding which speech they will or will not distribute.
Which is it? Do his job as a CEO and screw over as many people as it takes to marginaly improve profits or focus of fixing important issues? You can't have both.
I just don't like throwing away perfectly fine hardware simply because the ISP tells me it's obsolete. Besides, I don't consider ~$30 for a decent extender "dirt cheap".
Now if only the hardware suppliers could do something like this for the half dozen defunct wifi ADSL routers I now have configured to barely run as extenders...
The random grandchild of a successful artist isn't more capable than anybody else. Death + 95 years doesn't make any sense; it does not encourage production of creative works. Few people want to abolish copyright laws, but few people think abolishing the public domain for all practical intents and purposes is a good idea either. A more balanced copyright protection duration could be set between incentivizing production of unique works and production of derived works.
I get what you mean and in general I agree. I have the luck of having a good set of brains, hobbies that companies love to pay me for and living in a country that does not think "social" is a curse word. But never forget that for many people, especially in countries like the US, keeping a job is a bare necessity of survival.
Slashdot Mirror
To further the car analogy, how about Intel just make a widget that doesn't require the driver to switch it on. Then when they fix the bug in future cars, they can tell the driver the widget is no longer needed.
This is essentially what Linus is proposing.
Instead Intel requires all drivers to use a widget that they have to switch on every time in order to prevent their cars from exploding, even long after Intel manages to fix the bug.
Having news company X review messages posted by news company Y. What could possibly go wrong?
Linus seems to (begrudingly) accept the need for a temporary fix and there is already a temporary fix that works for current CPU's.
The problem is Intel calling it a permanent fix and implying that every future CPU will be unsecure by default unless the OS flips a switch.
That way Intel can blame any performance issues on the OS and still pretend their CPU is fast, even though it isn't when running in the secure mode that no sane person would ever use.
How about a car analogy:
Imagine all cars have two bugs in the gearbox that trigger on putting it in reverse certain ways.
But 1 makes a dashboard light blink one time.
All car manufacturers have this bug, and they all fixed it when found.
Bug 2 makes your car explode.
AMD and ARM knew about this and fixed it. It made their cars a bit slower, but atleast it wouldn't explode.
Intel knew about it too, but they choose to ignore it. Their cars are a bit faster because of this.
Intel fixed this by sending out a widget that stops the car from exploding, this widget does make Intel cars go slower.
The widget doesn't fix it automatically, though! The driver has to switch the widget on every time he starts the car. If the driver doesn't switch the widget on, putting the car in reverse will still make it explode.
Intel also says that this is how all future cars will be prevented from exploding; by adding this widget to every future car and requiring the driver to switch it on; it'll always be in "explode-on-reverse" mode by default.
Intel does get to claim their car is faster by default though. Just don't put it in reverse.
As a bonus analogy; Intel claims both bugs are the same because they are both triggered by the same action, so therefore all car manufacturers are vulnerable to the exploding car bug.
Option A: Spend millions of dollars on curators and get criticized for it.
Option B: Do nothing and get criticized for it.
Oh, and option A has the added risk of accidentally blocking some not-entirely-fake news and getting sued because of it.
IMHO, Intel is basically operating in PR-nightmare-cleanup-mode right now.
They fucked up badly and are trying to lie, cheat and manipulate their way out of it.
They are desperately trying to make it look like this is a generic problem (It's not; the AMD and ARM variants of these bugs are much less evil) and they are trying to safe face and shift blame however they can.
Plain and simple truth is that Intel has knowingly made malicious choices and now they've been caught.
I went in expecting the usual Linus ranting, and although he doesn't disappoint in that department, he also has a valid point.
As I understand it, Intel proposes to build in a switch in future CPU's which tells the CPU to stop being insecure. The switch is going to be off by default and must be switched on by the kernel during boot. Intel proposes to let all future CPU's be insecure by default.
Music hasn't become worse; record labels have become more efficiënt.
It's far cheaper to exploit starting musicians than to cultivate succesful musicians.
It's far cheaper to dump a performer as soon as they get popular enough to start making demands and just get another one.
And probably a lot more stable.
Sorry, it doesn't.
You can't measure quality by sales.
Now if only they could invent an AI that continuously posts "Get of my lawn", we'd have the entire old farts vs. modern culture lifecycle covered.
Is it reliable? Does it recognize my fingerprint every time and every other fingerprint none of the time?
It seems like a company such as MS would benefit greatly from having a unique hardware configuration for each employee.
It might be a PITA for their deployment systems but then again, they're selling those too!
Because ARM itself claims they are affected: https://developer.arm.com/supp...
AMD also claims one variant of the bug affects their CPU's: https://www.amd.com/en/corpora...
https://developer.arm.com/supp...
And also R7, R8, A8, A9, A17 and A73
Please don't spread your own lie.
ARM has publically stated a number of their CPU designs are affected by these bugs.
Only AMD is denying.
You're completely right. Free speech does not mean newspapers, TV stations and the like are obliged to distribute that speech.
In this case however, it's about banning the newspapers and TV stations themselves from deciding which speech they will or will not distribute.
Hearing idiots speak is the price you pay for your own freedom of speech.
Which is it? Do his job as a CEO and screw over as many people as it takes to marginaly improve profits or focus of fixing important issues? You can't have both.
I just don't like throwing away perfectly fine hardware simply because the ISP tells me it's obsolete.
Besides, I don't consider ~$30 for a decent extender "dirt cheap".
Now if only the hardware suppliers could do something like this for the half dozen defunct wifi ADSL routers I now have configured to barely run as extenders...
How about if you do pay the bill, but letting the house burn down is cheaper than puting the fire out and paying the fine for breach of contract?
The random grandchild of a successful artist isn't more capable than anybody else.
Death + 95 years doesn't make any sense; it does not encourage production of creative works.
Few people want to abolish copyright laws, but few people think abolishing the public domain for all practical intents and purposes is a good idea either.
A more balanced copyright protection duration could be set between incentivizing production of unique works and production of derived works.
Possibly, the thing is I don't see at this point why many people need to attend university.
Because HR people don't get fired for hiring a fuck-up with a proper degree.
School isn't about education, it's about passing job criteria.
I get what you mean and in general I agree.
I have the luck of having a good set of brains, hobbies that companies love to pay me for and living in a country that does not think "social" is a curse word.
But never forget that for many people, especially in countries like the US, keeping a job is a bare necessity of survival.
I honestly don't know whether parent or GP (or both) were being serious or sarcastic.