12 ms·
Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban
- dmitrygr 8y agoNo explanations, no apologies, just this: We are updating the license now to address this and will have a new version available soon. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback.
- eahman08 8y agoWould it change anything if they said "we are sorry"?
- dsr_ 8y agoYes. "That was a mistake, won't happen again" is an acknowledgement that they got it wrong and a promise not to do it again. "We're changing it" is neither one.
- krn1p4n1c 8y agoIt'd be the same kind of "We're sorry" as the South Park BP oil spill commercial.
- mikeash 8y agoA proper apology is not just “sorry,” but includes an acknowledgment of what they did wrong and that they’ll avoid doing the same thing again. Showing that they realize the nature of the problem and will at least pretend to not do it again would be good.
- shittyadmin 8y agoWell, at least they didn't make excuses or delay things, just said "don't worry I fixed it" basically. That's about the same thing I tell datacenters when they catch me seeding torrents.
- Skunkleton 8y ago> same thing I tell datacenters when they catch me seeding torrents Well, it is right there in your username :)
- mg794613 8y agoI up voted you both. Not because of added value to the discussion but you made me laugh out loud. (not the lol, but the real thing)
- Skunkleton 8y agoNot adding value in a humorous way describes more of my life than I would like to admit.
- dmichulke 8y ago> soon IIRC, at the time they talked about the delivery of the initial patches for Meltdown and Spectre, Intel's definition of "soon" was somewhere between "4 weeks" and "never"
- kev009 8y agoHow do you gaffe this bad? How is someone that incompetent in the decision making loop? Some random engineer creating the ucode or uploading it to the web doesn't come up with this kind of idea to change license language. These are edicts from management. I'd love for that conversation to leak in full.
- pwg 8y agoThat language is likely derived from a path similar to this: "Marketing department" -- We are sick of seeing the world complain that our patches to these problems reduce performance by X percent. Hey "Legal Dept", can anything be done about that? "Legal Dept" -- We will see what we can do... Result, a new clause appears in the license file that says "no bench-marking". With no one in the path ever having heard of the Streisand effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) (yes, Streisand effect is not a perfect fit here, but the 'publicity' part of the effect is what in fact has occurred).
- Aloha 8y agoI suspect its something more banal. I believe intel does distribute test/beta microcode to certain partners, and likely security researchers, this kind of statement is something you would put in a beta version, I wonder if someone simply used the wrong license file when they deployed this to the website.
- babypuncher 8y ago
- jeswin 8y agoKudos to the debian team for their uncompromising stand - this may have set a precedent otherwise.
- notmyname 8y agoHere's the update: https://01.org/mcu-path-license-2018 https://01.org/mcu-path-license-2018 found via https://twitter.com/imadsousou/status/1032680311753072640 https://twitter.com/imadsousou/status/1032680311753072640
- djsumdog 8y agoSo has anyone broken the currently EULA and published benchmarks with the new microcode updates anyway?
- bearjaws 8y agoIm curious to see the benchmarks too.
- m_st 8y agoIntel has. Here are some benchmarks: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/l1tf.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...
- anonymousDan 8y agoSo basically the fix is to disable hyperthreading?
- xvf22 8y agoThis seems like someone testing the waters. I fear as they fall further behind the behaviour may become more desperate.
- Aloha 8y agoI think Hanlon's razor is more correct here. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
- dbuder 8y agoThis is Intel, Hanlon doesn't apply.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago"I", as a multinational multi billion dollar corporation could then carry out the most vile acts, but as long as I can feign 'oops' I ought never be held to account as if my acts had intent? I mean come on, they're killing their processor performance due to their own security vulnerabilities and oopsie daisy we just accidentally included a 'no benchmarking' clause? I've got a better razor for - Occam's.
- Aloha 8y agoI've worked for multinational multi billion dollar corporations - a certain level of institutional incompetence is honestly the norm.
- paulie_a 8y agoBut at the end of the day who would have given a shit about the license on a cpu? It would have been ignored.
- evfanknitram 8y agoMaybe some larger tech sites would choose not to publish?
- jrockway 8y agoThe EULA was never the stick for them. Intel can say "kill this story or you never get swag and engineering samples again" and it's done.
- kardos 8y agoPeople who play by the rules in this space, which includes (many) open source developers. Flaunting the ill-conceived license is one choice, getting it fixed is a better choice.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- robdachshund 8y agoARM and RISC-V can't come soon enough
- acd 8y agoFrom a legal point of view can you limit free speech through a end user license agreement? Free speech is protected by the first amendment, many countries basic legal laws. If some challenged it and it went to the high court how would it likely judge?
- monocasa 8y agoFree speech is a protection that the government can't take away, but you can give it away of your own volition. Think NDAs.
- richrichardsson 8y agoI'm not a US citizen but I seem to be more aware of what the 1st amendment actually entails more than a seemingly large proportion of actual citizens, surely you guys learn that stuff at school? Is it just presented really dryly and so kids don't pay attention?
- monocasa 8y agoOur civics education has really gone downhill for decades.
- phyller 8y agoThis argument has been repeated so much, I'm going to try to explain. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what I learned in school in the US. There are numerous examples of voluntarily giving up your right to free speech. In the United States there are criminal and civil suits. You won't be criminally charged by the government for your free speech about CPU benchmarks, but if you actually agreed as part of a contract to not disclose benchmarks in order to get something, then you can be successfully sued by an organization or individual in a civil suit. They can't throw you in jail but they can take your money. I highly suspect the same thing is true in most first world countries, otherwise a lot of companies wouldn't be able to do business because it would be illegal to keep trade secrets. What did they tell you in school?
- jrockway 8y agoI have trouble believing this was anything other than some random employee selecting the wrong license. I'm glad they fixed it.
- reacharavindh 8y agoCurious, if Intel stood by their "no benchmarking" rule, can someone post the detailed benchmark results anonymously via say pastebin or something? Sure, you can't trust it like you from something like phoronix, but the results can then be freely shared on social media right? What am i missing?
- jplayer01 8y agoThe problem is trust though. Benchmarks are only worth considering if the source is reliable. Unknown sources by definition aren't, because it's easy to fudge the numbers and give fake methodology. There's no consequences for the unknown benchmarker if he intentionally misleads. Anandtech et al. have reputations to protect.