From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Nov  9 08:31:07 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA20916
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:31:07 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from server.local.sunyit.edu (A-T34.rh.sunyit.edu [150.156.210.241])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA20908
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:31:00 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu)
Received: from localhost (perlsta@localhost)
	by server.local.sunyit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA18761;
	Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:35:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: server.local.sunyit.edu: perlsta owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:35:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu>
X-Sender: perlsta@server.local.sunyit.edu
To: Atipa <freebsd@atipa.com>
cc: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: IDT processors?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.971108225631.5031B-100000@dot.ishiboo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971109122904.18731A-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

intel stinks, period.
First the Pentium FPU bug, then the PII and PPro FPU bug (anyone besides
me know about this?) and now any server out there running shell is
vulnerable to DOS from some dumbass with gcc and the ability to paste from
a webpage into thier telnet terminal?

AMD has a bug with systems with greater than 64 megs of ram
With Cyrix chips you're lucky if the damn thing doesn't smolder through
your motherboard.

plus with the baby wintels they just dfon't have enough testing behind
them to see if they have any esoteric bugs like the pentium or worse.

sorry for the rant, anyone know where  can get a bug free chip? someone
has to be making them... :)

-Alfred

> 
> What/Who is IDT? I heard about some So. CA startup company using the 
> SGS/Thompson Fab. Is that them? 
> 
> I really doubt the contingent that is affected by this bug would be 
> likely to trust a no-name chip. The whole point is reliability...
> 
> I would not put mission critial servers on AMD K6 or any Cyrix. There is 
> no vestal virgin in the X86 market. Intel is still the best of the bunch 
> for reliability. <Note to self: Raise flame shields, now!>
> 
> Kevin
>