Sorry, I don't know who [EMAIL PROTECTED] is, but it wasn't me. I'd suggest emailing Rocky, he likes big guys. :)
Thanks, Gadi. On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, monikerd wrote: > Gadi Evron wrote: >> I formerly had a great deal of respect, bordering on admiration, for Theo >> deRaadt's refusals to compromise his open source principles, even in the >> face of stiff opposition. Although he has occasionally gone over-the-top, >> recommended some frankly very dubious changes to OpenBSD, and is regularly >> arrogant (which is even more annoying because he's so often right!), he's >> always remained consistent in his devotion to the cause of GNU/Free Software. >> >> Notice "formerly": my confidence in deRaadt has been soundly shaken by his >> latest round of unfounded aspersions cast against Intel's Core 2 line of >> CPUs. Instead of getting the facts with careful analysis and study, deRaadt >> has jumped the gun by trying to preempt proper research with posts to the >> openbsd-misc mailing list. This in itself wouldn't be so bad, but his only >> proper citation is a 404 page, and his only other source is an old summary >> of unverified errata from a hobbyist website. >> >> The lack of fact-checking and complete absence of any credible sources for >> his allegations is suspicious in itself, but he compounds it into a complete >> boner by making an equally unsupported claim that the supposed (in fact >> non-existent) CPU problems are security flaws: >> >> As I said before, hiding in this list are 20-30 bugs that cannot be worked >> around by operating systems, and will be potentially exploitable. I would >> bet a lot of money that at least 2-3 of them are. >> >> Without real references to backup his exaggerated concerns, deRaadt's post >> crosses the line into outright libel and scare-mongering. It's obvious when >> you know what to look for: the subtle use of neurolinguistic priming in >> emotive leading phrases such as "some errata like AI65, AI79, AI43, AI39, >> AI90, AI99 scare the hell out of us", "Open source operating systems are >> largely left in the cold", "hiding in this list", and so forth. This does >> not lead me to share Theo's purported fears; instead it leads me to believe >> that he's trying to unduly influence Intel's reputation with lies. >> >> I have an idea of why. It's the same reason deRaadt feels comfortable in >> saying that he'd "bet a lot of money" on Intel's Core 2 processors having >> multiple (not one, but several) security flaws originating from these >> errata. Namely, one of Intel's largest competitors has supplied the OpenBSD >> project with a substantial amount of monetary support since 2004, presumably >> because they can't compete even in the open source market without propping >> it up with a flow of money. They cannot maintain their position on the >> processor front, so they're resorting to buying out open source software >> developers. It's regrettably cheap to do so, even if they have deRaadt's >> prestige, because their business models stifle income and so a monolith such >> as AMD can trivially tempt them with greater incentives. In fact deRaadt is >> an easier target for "donations" because he makes it clear that he has no >> business model for OpenBSD. >> >> Intel, by contrast, have no discernable incentive to deceive or play down >> security flaws in their products; the consecutive f00f and FDIV bugs of the >> past have taught Intel that their best course of action is to face up to >> their errors and offer speedy fixes. >> >> DeRaadt's claim that Intel must "be come [sic] more transparent" is most >> unfounded, especially when one considers who stands to benefit from this >> anti-Intel arrangement; the connections between the AMD-ATI leviathan and >> deRaadt-driven projects are not hard to find. AMD make a point of >> emphasising OpenBSD's place in the "AMD64 ecosystem", and, as already >> mentioned, lends its deep pockets to deRaadt's grasp. And the connections go >> both ways too: deRaadt has a blatant chip on his shoulder regarding Intel. >> >> Ultimately, it hasn't been enough for deRaadt to level unsubstantiated >> libels at Intel, or to elicit spurious security fears about its solidly >> tested products. He's added an extra layer of hypocrisy on top by attacking >> Intel for being opaque and complaining about made-up fatal flaws in their >> Core 2 system. I would go as far as to posit that it is in fact deRaadt's >> system for running the OpenBSD project which has a fatal flaw. This escapade >> proves that deRaadt -- and by extension the OpenBSD project -- is simply too >> vulnerable to external influence from corporations with a vested interest >> and lots of lucre. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready >> for the edge of your seat? >> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. >> http://tv.yahoo.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >> >> > Nice try, but (Wrong list). Too little to late. > > firstly you employ the trick of "accuse them first" when you get to > "neurolinguistic priming" > your text is full of it. Basically that's all your email is. > > Theo's posts were quite some time ago, and then neither of the links > were 404. > > Also your topic is misleading. > > Your mail cites even fewer references. Does not contribute anything new. > > You are basically saying you disagree. well ladida. That's your right. > Didn't need to use that > many ascii or fancy words for that. > > If a major cpu does not perform to specifications, this is a big deal, > seeing as you only now > have come to hear about it, signifies how much it has been downplayed. > > Theo's methods and arguments, are often flawed in several ways, and he's > sure been > known to overreact. However usually the underlying theme is pretty accurate. > And in this case he's saying. FCOL you are degrading my operating > system's quality > on these chips and not even releasing the information I need, to fix it. > > "no discernable incentive to deceive" --> are you kidding here or just stupid? > - It has stock holders > - what would it cost to recall the chips? When there is no replacement yet? > > > Now I like Intel, I realize what adverse effects releasing all the details > could be > concerning IP (yes these guys are kinda careful with that, stockholders again > ..) > reputation, balance sheets, ... > > > I'm pretty sure this conversation has already taken place.We'll see how it > plays out. > > > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/