Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:48:06 -0700 (MST) From: Wes Peters <softweyr@xmission.com> To: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentium bug (really) Message-ID: <199711130448.VAA03343@obie.softweyr.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971112111910.1791B-100000@darkstar.home> References: <19971112122617.23109@netmonger.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971112111910.1791B-100000@darkstar.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Mott writes:
> I can see no reason that Intel would not want such information openly
> available. On the other hand, if BSDI figured out a fix on their own,
> they would have an economic incentive (perhaps) to keep it proprietary.
Intel does want such information in the hands of everyone who can
benefit from it; I was told so personally by an Intel vice president
this afternoon. On the other hand, they want to ascertain the solution
really solves the problem; half-baked answers probably won't help.
Mind you, I am not a spokesman for Intel nor even an apologist for them.
I did happen to have the ear of someone very high in the company for a
minute and asked him about this problem.
One part of the "attack" on the problem has been to alert the makers of
virus scanning software to search for the instruction sequence that
causes the crash. I found this a novel attack, and kicked myself for
not thinking of it. ;^)
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711130448.VAA03343>