Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:10:44 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: chris@netmonger.net (Christopher Masto) Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentium bug (really) Message-ID: <199711121810.LAA04854@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <64cier$a60$1@schenectady.netmonger.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Christopher Masto writes: > I either joined this mailing list too late or joined the wrong mailing > lists. You joined the wrong list. Freebsd-isp is the list you want, 'chat' is for subjects totally un-related to FreeBSD that 'enthusiasts' talk about as they digress from FreeBSD related material. However... > am on the brink of making a rather important decision. I am pretty > sick of Intel, so replacing our P166s with K6s is somewhat attractive. > Still, BSDI claims that Intel has helped them to develop a workaround > (which they're not at liberty to explain in detail). Even if Intel > isn't being cooperative with the free software community, it is > plausible that "a workaround exists" implies "someone will find it and > publish it". Maybe, but what performance affect does it entail? > Of course, this is all moot if I missed the announcement that FreeBSD > already has the same fix. Anyway, the big question is.. does it or > might it in the near future? It doesn't AFAIK, and 'might' is a pretty useless word here. It might, but as to the chances of it happening, I have *NO* idea. There are some pretty smart people who hack FreeBSD, and if I were Intel I'd want to share that information with folks as widely as possible *IF* the work-around isn't also easily worked-around. Since source distributions are necessary in FreeBSD and such, if the Intel work-around can be easily disabled, then they aren't going to publish how they work around the bug since it wouldn't help them. Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711121810.LAA04854>