By: philt (ptay1685.delete@this.bigpond.net.au), June 30, 2007 1:52 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brendan (btrotter@gmail.com) on 6/30/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>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?
>
These things you are listing are limitations imposed by design, not by accident. They are not defects. The reason the word "errata" is used is because it indicates "errors", e.g. they are unintentional. They (usually, often) cause behaviour that is unpredictable and therefor wholly undesireable for something to be programmed where predictability is mandatory. So a car that cannot run underwater is fine for its intended purpose, whearas a cpu that can do the unexpected and cause program exceptions or invalid data is not.
It is not however expected that an engine will run under water. And neither does Intel mention "do not connect the cpu directly to the AC mains" either in their errata.
I really fail to see any rationale behind this argument of yours.
>>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
>
---------------------------
>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?
>
These things you are listing are limitations imposed by design, not by accident. They are not defects. The reason the word "errata" is used is because it indicates "errors", e.g. they are unintentional. They (usually, often) cause behaviour that is unpredictable and therefor wholly undesireable for something to be programmed where predictability is mandatory. So a car that cannot run underwater is fine for its intended purpose, whearas a cpu that can do the unexpected and cause program exceptions or invalid data is not.
It is not however expected that an engine will run under water. And neither does Intel mention "do not connect the cpu directly to the AC mains" either in their errata.
I really fail to see any rationale behind this argument of yours.
>>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
>
