Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:26:04 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentium lockup fix in FreeBSD Message-ID: <5779.879481564@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:17:43 MST." <199711140217.TAA12083@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [ Private email ] Oh? Just between you, me and all of -hackers, eh? :-) If you're going to send something in private email then cc'ing hackers doesn't make a lot of sense (not that much of this discussion has so far). > I quote: > I have been trying to get this working in FreeBSD since last night; right > now, I'm not sure why what is happening is happening. But I'm giving up -- > I've had it "explained" to me by Jordan that even if I got it working, it > would not be considered, because this is simply not anything that anyone > needs to worry about. > > I read: > > Jordan isn't worried about the bug. Sure, if you believe Sean's statements over reality then that would be the right conclusion. However, that's not what I said to Sean. What I said was that David felt the original Linux fix to be a disgusting hack. I didn't say that any fix at all would be unacceptable and I didn't say that the bug was completely beneath our dignity to fix, I simply relayed an opinion that the one that Linux used was not considered all that clean (and I didn't even claim it as *my* opinion, something which Sean conveniently glossed over in his own attacks on "my position"). > Later on he writes: > (And, yes, I find Jordan's attitude that nobody should care, since there are > other things that can be done to destroy a system, offensive. Just as > offensive as Intel's official suggestion that you can always reboot your > system.) > > I read: > > Jordan claims that there are bigger breakin problems than this, and we > haven't expended any resources at fixing them, so why should we expend > resources fixing this. Yes, again, you're reacting not to what I said but to what someone else says I said. If you believe everything you read 2nd hand then there's really no point in continuing this discussion anyway since facts are evidently unimportant to you (see? Two can play the "let's jump to idiotic conclusions given an insufficiency of facts" game :-). If we're going to debate what someone said I said vs what I actually said then I really don't see the merit of even continuing this discussion. You are knocking down straw men, nothing more. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5779.879481564>