From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 11 23:04:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA25614 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:04:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25598 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:04:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA14245; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:04:00 -0800 (PST) To: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: F00F bug *fixed* in 2.0.x kernels In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Dec 1997 05:48:30 GMT." <3491cfe3.6774010@mail.cetlink.net> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:04:00 -0800 Message-ID: <14241.881910240@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Yeah, I think everyone's seen this Torvalds flame by now. The sad thing was, that was *not* the FreeBSD fix. It was a fix that had been floated earlier by someone on the mailing lists and was never committed to the tree - the eventual fix which made it in was the Intel fix. Intel, in fact, even commented on that first proposed fix even earlier than Linus did and told us why it wouldn't work. There was never any intention of using the fix that Linus cites, it was just one of many fixes under evaluation, and all he's done here is gone off half-cocked again with accompanying language which simply made the mistake far worse than it needed to be. People will often forgive one even the most blatant suppositions if one is polite about them. Make even a minor error with the tagline "(you fucking idiot!)" embeded, however, and you can count on being embroiled in flames for at least a month. I think Miss Manners may be on to something here. :-) Jordan