Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
On 12 Jul 2007 09:56:03 +0200, Artur Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that's what he said. He wasn't contradicting me, he was just amplifying my message. :) In that case, color me *blush* :) Apologies Jacob. -Tai -- "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
bofh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, everyone picks up on the one thing that Linus fixed a while back, > the TLB stuff. What about the rest of the bugs? The non-TLB crap? > How is Art ignoring the relevance of the rest of the message? He just > said, the TLB is just a minor issue, that the *OTHER* guys are > ignoring the major stuff. I think that's what he said. He wasn't contradicting me, he was just amplifying my message. :) //art
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
On 7/11/07, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Artur Grabowski wrote: > The TLB issues are just one small part of what Theo was talking about, > not even the most important one. > > Count the number of bugs in the errata. Only a very few of them deal with > the TLB and most of those are easy to deal with and we've already had classic computer geek argument technique: when someone presents a long-winded, obviously carefully thought-out argument you attack only the minor points that you can pick apart and ignore the relevance of the rest of the message. I'm not sure what you mean. I read that interview. They're only concentrating on one item, TLB. That's all they talked about. IIRC, Theo never said TLB "will assuredly" be exploitable, he said some of the bugs will be. So, everyone picks up on the one thing that Linus fixed a while back, the TLB stuff. What about the rest of the bugs? The non-TLB crap? How is Art ignoring the relevance of the rest of the message? He just said, the TLB is just a minor issue, that the *OTHER* guys are ignoring the major stuff. the term "rathered" comes to mind. I would go for "confused" and "not get the point". Probably throw in "didn't read the original article properly, and didn't visit the referenced links" as well. -- "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:33:24PM -0700, John Mendenhall wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 06:21:43PM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: > > > > > > the term "rathered" comes to mind. > > > > > > > what does it mean? > > "Dan Rather"-ed > so i should have googled for it. i thought it was some horrible abuse of "rather" (except it is). ta jmc
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 06:21:43PM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: > > > > the term "rathered" comes to mind. > > > > what does it mean? "Dan Rather"-ed JohnM -- john mendenhall [EMAIL PROTECTED] surf utopia internet services
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 06:21:43PM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: > > the term "rathered" comes to mind. > what does it mean? jmc
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
Artur Grabowski wrote: Christoph Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Linus contradicts Theo on Intel TLB issue: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=559 No he doesn't. The article is confused and missed the whole point. The TLB issues are just one small part of what Theo was talking about, not even the most important one. Count the number of bugs in the errata. Only a very few of them deal with the TLB and most of those are easy to deal with and we've already had most of those right (the Core 2 problems we've been seeing are most likely caused by a different errata that the operating system can't do anything about, but I don't have any proof other than that updating the BIOS helps). The biggest, potentially exploitable, issues are other than the TLB issues. classic computer geek argument technique: when someone presents a long-winded, obviously carefully thought-out argument you attack only the minor points that you can pick apart and ignore the relevance of the rest of the message. the term "rathered" comes to mind. cheers, jake //art --
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
On 11 Jul 2007 10:59:12 +0200, Artur Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Christoph Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Linus contradicts Theo on Intel TLB issue: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=559 Count the number of bugs in the errata. Only a very few of them deal with the TLB and most of those are easy to deal with and we've already had I went and read the nice gif, there's actually another updated one somewhere on the site. If you looked at just the red ones, it's scary. There's even one with a math issue, there's one where the 2nd core does not obey the NX bit, etc. These are not TLB issues, and to me, looks scary. -- "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Re: Intel Core 2 - round #2
Christoph Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Linus contradicts Theo on Intel TLB issue: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=559 No he doesn't. The article is confused and missed the whole point. The TLB issues are just one small part of what Theo was talking about, not even the most important one. Count the number of bugs in the errata. Only a very few of them deal with the TLB and most of those are easy to deal with and we've already had most of those right (the Core 2 problems we've been seeing are most likely caused by a different errata that the operating system can't do anything about, but I don't have any proof other than that updating the BIOS helps). The biggest, potentially exploitable, issues are other than the TLB issues. //art
Intel Core 2 - round #2
Linus contradicts Theo on Intel TLB issue: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=559 Christoph
