Re: Groan...
> ...what the hell are you going to do with Intel processor microcode except use it to program an Intel processor?
I used it on my moped. Now it's super duper fast! Sadly, it also leaks.
Use Debian? Want Intel's latest CPU patch? Small print sparks big problem
At least one Linux distribution is withholding security patches that mitigate the latest round of Intel CPU design flaws – due to a problematic license clash. Specifically, the patch is Chipzilla's processor microcode update emitted this month to stop malware stealing sensitive data from memory by exploiting the L1 Terminal …
-
Wednesday 22nd August 2018 20:15 GMT Claptrap314
Finally
After seven months of defending Intel on this thread for decisions which were reasonable at the time, we get a clear case of Intel being Intel. **** Intel. **** their marketing team and their lawyers. This ******** behavior is precisely why the industry has carried AMD on their backs for decades. ******* **** ******** **** ***************.
There. I feel much better now.
-
Thursday 23rd August 2018 01:46 GMT whitepines
Re: Finally
As I've pointed out here a few times, AMD's no saint either. They only exist because Intel allows them to exist, and they have picked up some very nasty habits from Intel over the years, from signed black-box firmware binaries (PSP) to disabling features semi-arbitrarily to increase profit (overclocking on server parts, ECC on consumer parts). Two sides of the same coin from my perspective.
Icon, 'cause it might be chilly on the streets outside the cozy x86 world....
-
-
Thursday 23rd August 2018 03:31 GMT onefang
"Also, the patches are picked up during the usual monthly routine of fetching and stalling operating system software updates."
Others have pointed out the "stalling" typo, I'm taking umbrage with the "usual monthly routine" bit. Since this article is specific to Debian, I'll point out that Debian doesn't do monthly update releases. They release updates when the updates are ready. Personally I do weekly updates on my Linux based systems, though I also check daily to see if there's anything in urgent need of an update.
-
Thursday 23rd August 2018 20:11 GMT dwheeler
This is a DeWitt clause, and DeWitt clauses should be illegal
Contract and license clauses that forbid benchmark publication (unless the vendor likes them) are often called DeWitt clauses. The clause was originally created to squelch database research being performed by Dr. David DeWitt. These should be illegal everywhere, but Oracle (their original creator) rigorously enforces them. These clauses harm society by making it impossible to publish truthful information about software.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
