Hi,

philt (ptay1685@bigpond.net.au) on 6/29/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>Andi Kleen (ak-rwt@muc.de) on 6/29/07 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Depends. A lot are in very contrived circumstances
>>that are unlikely to be hit in any real situation
>>(usually found then with randomized tests)
>>
>
>That word "unlikely" is rather worrying. I prefer "never".

Imagine a list of errata for your car, which includes things like "the engine may stall if it's submersed in water" and "the tires tend to blow up when the car approaches the speed of sound". Would you rather these things aren't listed in the errata (so that people doing really strange things like driving underwater or trying to set land-speed records don't know about the problem), or would you rather the car manufacturer spent billions of dollars fixing these "defects" and passed the costs onto the purchaser?

>If someone passes me in the street without pulling out a gun and shooting me, I
>dont approach them and say "gee thanks for not killing me - your a real pal - let me buy you a drink".
>
>If Intel have done the right thing, thats good, but we shouldnt applaud them for
>it as if they are doing us a big favour by not lying to us. Thats my point.

It's strange - because of Intel I've come to expect complete (and freely available) lists of errata for CPUs, but because of other companies (e.g. Nvidea) I've come to expect a poke in the eye for other hardware. Despite this people complain about Intel's bugs (because they aren't hidden), and then encourage Intel to behave more like NVidia with their misguided complaints. Does this sound like a good alternative?

If everyone you pass in the street does pull out a gun and shoot you but for some reason one person doesn't, would you thank the person for not shooting you, or would you complain until that person wishes they did shoot you?


Cheers,

Brendan