Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: Paul_Turley@ccm2.hf.intel.com (Paul Turley) Cc: FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.Org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: Re[2]: Triton supports Parity? Message-ID: <199506282040.NAA10250@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <950628125400_1@ccm.hf.intel.com> from "Paul Turley" at Jun 28, 95 12:54:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[I am posting this to the FreeBSD-hackers mailing lists as this has been another place there has been massive confusion about Triton and parity. I would like the other folks involved here to post this reply to the Usenet news groups, etc that started this mess] > > > If he posted your email address, with your permission, why should he > have any reason to go ask you if it is okay if he gave it to me in > _private_ email in response to a snippet of this posting that had > been forwarded to me by a third party with that piece of data missing? > > For simple ethical reasons. In the one case, i had given my permission. > In the other case i had not. He should have been able to forward his original post then with your number in it to me or possible given me an article number so I could go dig it out of the archives. What is the big deal about anyway, all I I asked for was his source of information so I might yet again squelch bad data about the Triton chip set! [Which Intel does not seem to be too concerned about :-(] > You should be very careful, as I am sure you are aware, that if you > answer a question about an Intel product as an Intel employee, even > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > if your .signature says you do not speak for Intel people will think > that this is ``Intel Claiming';'. I agree with your assessment, but > the real crux of the problem is, no one that I have been able to > find will speak ``officially'' for Intel on this matter :-(. > > What a few people may think is something i can do little about. The purpose > of > the .sig is to make it clear that i am *NOT* speaking "as an Intel employee" > but > merely as a person with an Intel email address. Most net literate folks > understand that people with an aol.com address, for instance, don't > speak *for* > America Online but merely speak *from* there. The same applies to any > other net > address. I think you missed my point. I am in agreement here that people _should_ realize that this is not an official Intel claim, but that does not stop the folks who do not understand this from propagating it as an Intel claim. Especially if it is forwarded from a Usenet article to some one via private email and the .signature gets cut off. Also you aol.com case is a strawman, those folks are not AOL employees using an aol.com address talking about Intel products. Quite different than an Intel Employee with an Intel address talking about Intel products. Again, I just wish to caution you that no matter what your .signature says people are going to interpret your words as ``Intel Claims'' even though this is not correct. [Ie, I am trying to offer some free advise that you not talk about Intel Products as an Intel Employee from your company mail account, in fact you are walking a very fine line with Intel corporate computer security policy (something I do know quite a bit about as I have been at times responsible for seeing that it was followed and implemented measure where practical to make _sure_ it was followed) by doing so. > > THEN WHO DOES????? Can you point me to an official person who can answer > this question OFFICIALLY for the public. Intel has played this hide the > data game far to long, and should have learned (and did mildly) from what > the FPU Pentium bug cost them in reputation. I would consider designing > a chip set that claims ``support for parity and non-parity Simms'' that > does not actually implement either PCI bus or DRAM parity checking to > be extremely misleading, if not down right a LIE. > > If indeed you have a "yellow book" and a nondisclosure agreement then you > must > already know who speaks officially. The people who supplied those things > to you are, obviously, the official channel. Official yes, public no. I can't officially state what is in the yellow book (heck I could not even publicly mention it existed until _YOU_ as an Intel Employee breached security and mentioned it (thus the fact that there is a yellow book is now public record caused by someone else and _I_ am not in violation of my NDA, you on the other hand have violated an Intel security policy :-(. [I thank you for doing this, as I can now freely refer to the existence of this document, though I still can't disclose it's content until someone else lets that leek out :-)] > Further, you seem to be confusing two separate issues. > (1) You claim to have a "yellow book" yet you accuse Intel of hiding data. > Clearly, whatever the data may be, they have not hidden it from you. Selling a product to the mass market who's documentation is only available after great pains to find out about and great pains to obtain is ``hiding'' data. Unlike _all_ other Intel chip sets (mercury, Saturn, Saturn II, Aries, Neptune) the data for Triton is only available at this time under NDA. The other chips sets spec's where out in public before silicon was shipping!!! This _is_ hiding data, why Intel has gone one way on Pentium processor bugs (witness the fact that the ``Intel Pentium Processor Specification Updates'', order number 242480-004 was formerly only available under NDA but is now public at every other revision) and the opposite on chip sets (all former chip set data was available _before_ the chip sets) seems to be very inconsistent to me. Also since I am under NDA I can not disclose the data in the Yellow book to any one else, something that has just changed. The Yellow book is about to (or already has) been published as order numbers 290518 and 290519, as soon as I can get copies of the published versions I can talk all I want about the overlap in the data between the Yellow book and these documents. Note that if you go to order these they are currently back ordered until July 30th waiting to come from the printers, this is quite common of Intel literature. Why did Intel fell it important to keep this document private for 3 months after volume shipment of chips occurred??? It should have been public during the sampling phase and surely would have saved a lot of folks a lot of time trying to find out stupid little things like does Triton do parity checking or not. > (2) _I_do_not_represent_Intel_. My statements are not those of Intel Corp, > official or unofficial. If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. In > either case I'm solely responsible. Again, most reasonable, rational people > would not confuse me with Intel Corp. For one thing, Intel has a *lot* more > money :( I did not argue the fact of this point with you, see above, I was just trying to make you more aware of what some folks will do with your postings. Case in point, it was forwarded to me with the quote ``Intel Claims'', and without your .signature on the bottom of it I had no way to know just what was going on. In fact I inquired back to the original poster to try and track you down so I could get this situation cleared up, as it was yet another person very confused about the Triton parity issue. I am glad some one was finally able to put us together so that the facts could become clearer. I am also glad that I got mad enough over this whole mess again today to call back into the engineering literature department to find out if the yellow book had been made public yet and was given the public order numbers (for those who want to get this, call (800) 879-4683 and use the above order numbers.) Thank you all for your time, and patient, and hopefully we can finally squish all the nasty rumors and get to facts mammm :-) :-) -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506282040.NAA10250>