public inbox for development@lists.ipfire.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Intel Microcode
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:38:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c901227803752aaf18f9c673950044f872a786be.camel@ipfire.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7e10425-44bc-4dc9-97f2-3b48641088cd@rymes.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2123 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 10:26 -0400, Tom Rymes wrote:
> On 08/23/2018 9:34 AM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-08-22 at 19:36 +0200, Peter Müller wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > It looks like we have to rollback the microcode update. Intel has
> > changed the licensing terms in such a way that we won't be able (and no
> > third party either) to provide any performance benchmarks.
> > 
> > So if someone says on the forum that IPFire is "a little bit slower
> > since the last update", that would violate that license.
> 
> That's a VERY broad reading of the license. What you describe is a 
> subjective opinion of the performance of one installation from someone 
> not associated with the project, as opposed to the project itself 
> posting controlled performance benchmarks with before-and-after numbers.

That didn't come from me, but Debian and Gentoo:

* https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906158
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134

RedHat and SuSE seem to be shipping the new microcode. Not sure if they
saw the change of the license.

There is also a number of articles in the German news (at least) who
share this opinion:

* https://www.golem.de/news/side-channel-angriffe-intel-untersagt-benchmarks-und-haertet-naechste-generation-1808-136151.html

> [snip]
> 
> > Basically, it isn't an option to ship this. Other distributions think
> > the same.
> 
> I see the desire to err on the side of caution, plus the desire to put 
> pressure on Intel to modify the license, but I'd argue it's overkill.

It is just ridiculous from my angle. Their primary sales argument is to
be on top of the list of each benchmark out there. They probably forgot
about that.

But this is more about a slight change to hide that they messed up
*massively* here and a very bad attempt to cover it up. Now they got a
proper Streisand going. Well done Intel.

I am so fed up with spending so much of my time trying to fix something
that they got wrong and don't even own up to it. They are a shit
company.

*Goes and punches a wall now*

-Michael

> Tom


       reply	other threads:[~2018-08-23 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <f7e10425-44bc-4dc9-97f2-3b48641088cd@rymes.com>
2018-08-23 14:38 ` Michael Tremer [this message]
2018-08-23 14:49   ` Tom Rymes
2018-08-23 14:50     ` Michael Tremer
2018-08-23 19:11   ` Peter Müller
2018-08-24  6:25     ` Tapani Tarvainen
2018-08-24 10:26       ` Michael Tremer
2018-08-24 10:39     ` Michael Tremer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c901227803752aaf18f9c673950044f872a786be.camel@ipfire.org \
    --to=michael.tremer@ipfire.org \
    --cc=development@lists.ipfire.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox