David Hendricks <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi., 29. Jan. 2020, 00:51:
> we'd first need to invent a way to > send an electric shock thru the keyboard to users who complain to (or > about) Intel when something goes wrong with the code. > That may have been necessary in the era of the fdiv bug but I'm not sure this trope is still applicable to today: The concern is that something outside Intel's control reflected badly onto Intel, but our industry seems fully exempt of consequences (except for revenue being in the up and up) even when participants are fully responsible that I don't know how this can be true: Take Intel, their chips make news every few weeks because another side channel attack was discovered and besides some (probably uncomfortable) news cycle the only results seem to be that they still sell chips faster than they can produce them and that they provide workarounds that reduce performance by, I think, 25% (and counting) less than what people paid for? Meanwhile Intel's quarterly reports look fabulous. And this issue is by no means Intel specific, the entire industry managed to somehow replace responsibility with a short uncomfortable news cycle that is forgotten 24 hours later. No matter if hardware, software (what other paid product requires monthly maintenance cycles?) or even users (who opt to not even do that maintenance and instead pretend that any malware they suffer from is a force of nature instead of pain old neglect), there just are no consequences. And now we need to prevent users from whining at the wrong folks with something as drastic as remote shocks? Something doesn't seem to add up. Patrick >
_______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
