Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2007 17:19 UTC, submitted by doro
Intel "Buried deep in a pile of slashdot comments, Matthew Dillon of DragonFly gives a detailed assessment of the Intel Core bugs. While a lot of news sites and bloggers were quick to dismiss the issue as inflated, Dillon's comments provide a much closer look at the actual issues."
Thread beginning with comment 252019
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Some inaccuracies..
by Oliver on Sat 30th Jun 2007 19:17 UTC in reply to "Some inaccuracies.."
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

>So in summary, everything that Matthew Dillon thinks might look serious isn't worth yawning at....

If people like Theo de Raadt and Matthew Dillon tell me such things, I believe them. Okay Theo makes some noise, but in the end, there are two people working at superior operating systems and they have lot of experience with such things. Over and out ...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Some inaccuracies..
by jelway on Sun 1st Jul 2007 00:19 in reply to "RE: Some inaccuracies.."
jelway Member since:
2006-05-14

If people like Theo de Raadt and Matthew Dillon tell me such things, I believe them. Okay Theo makes some noise, but in the end, there are two people working at superior operating systems and they have lot of experience with such things. Over and out ...

...yeah - because MS or the Linux guys have no idea what they're doing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Some inaccuracies..
by kaiwai on Sun 1st Jul 2007 00:22 in reply to "RE: Some inaccuracies.."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If people like Theo de Raadt and Matthew Dillon tell me such things, I believe them. Okay Theo makes some noise, but in the end, there are two people working at superior operating systems and they have lot of experience with such things. Over and out ...


I think it depends on how you define what as 'issues' - I've had a look at Theo's reply, Matt's, and Linus.

Theo and Matt see it as very important because of this; programmers aren't perfect, one (or more) stupid coding mistakes *could* expose their software to these flaws. On very large projects like Windows, *BSD, Linux and so forth, it could be of a major concern.

The issue is whether one should class something as critical if the exploit can be the result of poor programming on the developers part - Theo and Matt maintain it elevates it, Linus and others say that it is up to the programmer to ensure that their software is written correctly.

For me, its important for both sides to be made available; that it isn't just an accross the board vulnerability. Its up to software companies to keep abreast of erratas relating to CPU's and more importantly, ensuring that they keep to best programming practices.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Some inaccuracies..
by butters on Sun 1st Jul 2007 05:57 in reply to "RE: Some inaccuracies.."
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

If people like Theo de Raadt and Matthew Dillon tell me such things, I believe them... they have lot of experience with such things

Allow me to introduce Mr. Naive and Mr. Savvy, the two orthogonal responses to any event. Mr. Naive thinks the world is changing and that the event at hand is central to these changes. He thinks that the event is unprecedented in either occurrence or significance. It's either something great that we must all support or something alarming that we must rise up against. Either way, Mr. Naive wants to use the event to elevate himself and his cause.

Mr. Savvy has been down this road before, and he has no reason to believe that this time will be any different. He knows how these things start and how they are resolved. He tells us that this stuff happens all the time, and although it seems troubling, there's nothing to worry about. Smart people are taking care of it, and everybody else should just keep shopping and using their credit cards. Mr. Savvy wants to deflect responsibility and kill the story.

The truth lies somewhere in between Mr. Naive and Mr. Savvy, but the public won't be exposed to the nuance of the actual situation. Instead, the issue is framed as a tension between Mr. Naive and Mr. Savvy. "Are CPU bugs going to cause worldwide economic collapse, or is this a perfectly normal part of the computer industry?" This is your standard "Fair and Balanced" frame, and it has been shown to favor Mr. Savvy by a large margin. Mr. Naive comes out bloodied and discredited.

The thing about Mr. Naive is that it doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, or how well he articulates his point. All that matters is whether Mr. Savvy gets a word in edgewise. When Mr. Naive speaks unopposed, we go to war (or stop a war). When Mr. Savvy is allowed to speak, we stay the course. The majority will believe Mr. Savvy until Mr. Naive is proven right in spectacular fashion. By then, of course, it's too late.

In this case, Mr. Savvy has spoken. Mr. Naive can tell us the sky is falling until he's blue in the face, and most people will think that everything is fine just the way it is. Only a spectacular errata-based event can bring about a change in how the public views CPU bugs.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Some inaccuracies..
by pepa on Mon 2nd Jul 2007 05:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Some inaccuracies.."
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

[OT] What has been happening in your life, butters? I used to think everyone of your posts was sublime, until around this month..!

Reply Parent Score: 0