On Sat, Jan 13, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Paul Rogers wrote: > > > Updating microcode can be a dangerous thing. I've never found a need > > to live on the bleeding edge of technology. > > I agree about bleeding edge issues, but leading edge is OK. My view is > that rc releases and betas or earlier are bleeding edge and latest stable > is leading edge. > > I don't really think updating microcode is dangerous if you have control. > After all, there is really no difference between firmware (aka BIOS or > UEFI) loading microcode and the kernel doing it via an initrd. > > -- Bruce >
I agree, in principal, it's less dangerous than flashing a BIOS. But as noted, the updates rushed out initially have caused new stability problems for certain CPUs. Intel has had an imperious attitude about identifying the fixes for users like us. I want some "transparency" from Intel. I consider our ignorance as a "lack of control." I just want to know if the microcode in the bundle for Conroes has actually been updated for Spectre--if I were to assume it has been, and it has not, nothing good can come from it. One of the Conroes I have in service is a Quad-Extreme, two 2.93MHz chips in a MCM package, not quite the common thing and I think perhaps worthy of special attention. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
