<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/20318/Major_Corruption_Bug_in_e1000e_Driver_in_Linux_Kernel_2_6_27</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:39:44 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>Sorry, couldn't resist...</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331191</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331191</guid>
			<description>All your 1000-baseT are belong to us.</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331194</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331194</guid>
			<description>I haven't RTFA, but I have been generally following the situation.  Apparently, trying to use Intel's utility to fix it sometimes helps and sometimes makes it worse.  I've heard that a bios flash does fix it.  YMMV.  Thank God my 1000baseT is a crappy low end one! (I'm running an affected kernel.)</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331206</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331206</guid>
			<description>Yes, as the MDV notification says, don't use ibautil.exe, it's really not a good idea. A BIOS flash apparently should usually fix it. If it doesn't, you should return to the manufacturer, unless you happened to take a backup of the good EEPROM data (we're all in the habit of backing up our EEPROMs, right? :&gt;)</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (AdamW)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[2]: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331217</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331217</guid>
			<description>I'm going to be now.  I got hit by this in an Ubuntu alpha, and just don't have time to RMA until school gets out for summer.<br />
<br />
I think the big issue is how some distributors are responding this.  Every ISO with this issue should be pulled immediately, and new ones posted with either a fix or the module removed, not just blacklisted.  There's a debate about this in the Ubuntu bug report right now.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/263555" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/263555</a></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Ethyriel)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[3]: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331218</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331218</guid>
			<description>Did you try just reflashing the BIOS? That should fix it.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (AdamW)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[4]: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331219</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331219</guid>
			<description>I'm going to have to see about flashing with an old BIOS since I'm at the latest, and Lenovo's utility won't let me reflash the current version.<br />
<br />
I've heard that a BIOS flash isn't working for everyone.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Ethyriel)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[5]: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331220</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331220</guid>
			<description>Yeah, that's not working for me.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Ethyriel)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[6]: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331226</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331226</guid>
			<description>Ah. That's a pain. :\</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (AdamW)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[3]: Tidbits</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?331359</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?331359</guid>
			<description>Hmm, interesting :p<br />
<br />
<div class="cquote"><br />
Jeffrey, we can't afford to do that; we need to be able to test with the Alpha CDs on the wide variety of hardware not affected by this bug, or our development schedules for 8.10 will be seriously compromised. However, I'd be happy to add a warning to the cdimage web pages. Can anyone suggest some text?<br />
 </div></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (wannabe geek)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
