Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:10:44 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: chris@netmonger.net (Christopher Masto) Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentium bug (really) Message-ID: <199711121810.LAA04854@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <64cier$a60$1@schenectady.netmonger.net> References: <64cier$a60$1@schenectady.netmonger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christopher Masto writes: > I either joined this mailing list too late or joined the wrong mailing > lists. You joined the wrong list. Freebsd-isp is the list you want, 'chat' is for subjects totally un-related to FreeBSD that 'enthusiasts' talk about as they digress from FreeBSD related material. However... > am on the brink of making a rather important decision. I am pretty > sick of Intel, so replacing our P166s with K6s is somewhat attractive. > Still, BSDI claims that Intel has helped them to develop a workaround > (which they're not at liberty to explain in detail). Even if Intel > isn't being cooperative with the free software community, it is > plausible that "a workaround exists" implies "someone will find it and > publish it". Maybe, but what performance affect does it entail? > Of course, this is all moot if I missed the announcement that FreeBSD > already has the same fix. Anyway, the big question is.. does it or > might it in the near future? It doesn't AFAIK, and 'might' is a pretty useless word here. It might, but as to the chances of it happening, I have *NO* idea. There are some pretty smart people who hack FreeBSD, and if I were Intel I'd want to share that information with folks as widely as possible *IF* the work-around isn't also easily worked-around. Since source distributions are necessary in FreeBSD and such, if the Intel work-around can be easily disabled, then they aren't going to publish how they work around the bug since it wouldn't help them. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711121810.LAA04854>