5 ms·
that's victim blaming. chip consumers missing a communication is very different from intel actively developing this to cut corners for raw performance (which i
by gcb0 7y ago
that's victim blaming.
chip consumers missing a communication is very different from intel actively developing this to cut corners for raw performance (which is the only reason they cornered the market) and forcing all other manufacturers to follow up or die.
- jcranmer 7y agoSpeculative execution was developed by IBM in the 1960s, before Intel made CPUs.
- monocasa 7y agoTo be fair, untrusted code wasn't part of the security model for mainframes for the longest time.
- tptacek 7y agoWait, wasn't it more a part of their model than for Intel? We're talking about the era of mandatory access control and time sharing.
- monocasa 7y agoI mean, the 360/91 that he's talking about didn't even have an MMU.
- wglb 7y agoI don't think this is really correct. From August 1965, multiprogramming was offered using DAT (Dynamic Address Translation)--what they called MMUs back then. And this feature was used to support not only many programs running at once, but also TSO (Time Sharing Option) which by definition is mutually untrusted code.
- monocasa 7y agoTSO didn't depend on hardware boundaries between clients.
- bepvte 7y agoTechnically, the phrase victim blaming fits this sentence, but I feel like this context is not its intended or commonly accepted use