Permabanned
I think we all saw that coming lol
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
The January update gets blocked (is not offered) on problematic AMD CPUs. Microsoft have said it is now fixed and they are resuming deployment. But AMD haven't updated their press release. One of my Opteron servers is still not being offered the update.
Best thing for people to do at the moment is make sure they are using a patched browser - personally I've not gone near any of the other updates, etc. though has impacted my use of VMs a little bit though for most of them it isn't an issue.
Sucks a bit for people doing stuff with VMs where the security of the sandbox is important and/or those with higher end use which might be exposed in servers, etc. with how much of a mess Intel and MS, etc. seem to be making of the patches.
Sucks a bit for people doing stuff with VMs where the security of the sandbox is important and/or those with higher end use which might be exposed in servers, etc. with how much of a mess Intel and MS, etc. seem to be making of the patches.
Soldato
Linus is not a happy bunny.
Soldato
lol, what a rant. He's not wrong, though. Ducking and diving is a big factor here. Although what with the back and forth with AMD and NVIDIA whines from his corner, I think the bloke simply has some objection to people who make money.
Permabanned
It screams of management making technical decisions, which they shouldn't be doing.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Seems a harsh comment.
As you rightly point out Intel are "ducking and diving" and doing everything they can to obfuscate and distract attention in the direction of their competitors.
Perhaps Linus feels that the hugely profitable Intel (which is hardly a charity) should take responsibility for what with the kindest possible interpretation is an unfortunate, unintentional flaw in their CPUs which quite coincidentally happens to improve performance.
Intel screwed up for years - they should now own up and stop the FU&D.
Thanks so much for this, I really appreciate it.
Edit: Just to add to this, I can set my frequency to 2800mhz before voltages go crazy. 2900, 2933 or XMP 3000 will cause the voltages to skyrocket. Leaving it at 2800 also fixes my long boot issue, so it all seems connected. I will try these manual values tonight. Very strange...I hope Asus releases a further update to fix this.
Last edited:
Soldato
My Chrome is currently installed Version 63.0.3239.132 (Official Build) (64-bit).
I'm assuming that should change today?
I'm assuming that should change today?
Permabanned
That's the idea, it takes time to roll updates out though, there'll be a timezone consideration too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
I posted this yesterday in this thread... you cant blame Linus really, Intel are beyond shady with this stuff.
Soldato
Not harsh. He likes to be known for coming out with brash remarks. He's done it at least twice with each of the tech giants, just reflects badly on him no matter what the situation might be.
What would in your opinion be the best course of action, then? lol.
EDIT:
Lol
Last edited:
Soldato
Intel seem to be having their own brexit at the moment...."quick install updates asap" er "hang on a minute no don't put updates on" total cluster**** sigh 
Intel seem to be having their own brexit at the moment...."quick install updates asap" er "hang on a minute no don't put updates on" total cluster**** sigh
This article just references Haswell and Broadwell though - is it all intel cpus, or just those families?
Clear as mud!
https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr
Soldato
Think its suggesting that its just Broadwell and Haswell that suffers the reboot issue ,personally not had issues so guess ill plod on regardless like the rest of us 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Wow, you really do this everywhere don't you. Here are the actual facts in the link you've used, the lawsuit has nothing at all to do with the 'near zero' risk. It's about disclosure and it's an opportunists case.
What happens with almost all big companies these days is anything happens and people buy stock then sue. Class action means not much, the people they persuade to sign up might get $0.02 each, but the lawyer who wins might get 300mil. People constantly do this, they buy stock or just speculate and keep $500 in stock in all the big companies and wait for something to happen. Then they launch a lawsuit, best case they actually have some merit and it might go long and they might win their lawyer fees of a couple hundred million, better case is company settles to save money, spend 300mil fighting for 5 years or settle for 30mil straight away. Worst case is company fights hard there isn't much merit but the suit can be dropped pretty quickly if they won't settle with minimal cost.
Companies can make literally 100s of millions a year with frivolous lawsuits.
But the big issue here is you entirely and purposefully misrepresenting the article you read. It states clear as day that the 'shareholder' who bought stocks this month and sued immediately, is complaining about the disclosure in quarterly reports as far back as 2016. Their case has no real merit, it's industry practice(in most industries) to not disclose major security flaws until the flaws are fixed and the fact that he's clearly an opportunist who does this for a living won't help him out in getting a favourable result.
In absolutely no way at all in that article is there any mention of them being sued because of the 'near zero' statement. Also the near-zero statement was made precisely to comply legally because saying zero wouldn't be strictly accurate, they could have been sued over that so exactly said the legally appropriate thing of not claiming no risk.
No one anywhere have I seen anyone claiming that AMD are vulnerable to spectre 2, there are videos of lots of people proving how vulnerable Intel is to spectre 2. People have taken the proof of concept and produced evidence of how the attacks happen in real time by reconstructing data you shouldn't have access to. Still no one has shown this on AMD chips. It's it strange how the industry at large, the best minds and then just various programmers can all exploit this flaw on Intel chips easily but none have yet shown it to work on AMD.... but you think AMD are lying about how low risk they are to variant 2.
Again though, the article you used to throw more shade at AMD doesn't imply the lawsuit has anything to do with the near-zero claim in any way.
It has everything to do with the "near zero" statement - the reason for that specific wording as revealed by the law suit is because of the complexities of using a more appropriate wording with the nature of their previous disclosures or lack of and as pointed out their subsequent amendment.