'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath
failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip
instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during
that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f9c8:0:b0:66d:12b3:b2a5 with SMTP id j8-20020a0cf9c8000000b0066d12b3b2a5mr185860qvo.11.1699899595645;
Mon, 13 Nov 2023 10:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:73c6:0:b0:da1:513d:8a3c with SMTP id
o189-20020a2573c6000000b00da1513d8a3cmr169013ybc.11.1699899595150; Mon, 13
Nov 2023 10:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 10:19:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:5cc:4701:5250:d507:bd4:a0b5:c2af;
posting-account=iGtwSwoAAABNNwPORfvAs6OM4AR9GRHt
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:5cc:4701:5250:d507:bd4:a0b5:c2af
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <72b435b7-2538-4bff-8b69-eb0c1c5116fen@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:19:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2465
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about
faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about
faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath >>> failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip
instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during
that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:47:13 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>'
wrote:
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
Windows 11 is obvious proof.
Path: not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:37:21 +0000
From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:36:55 -0800
Organization: Highland Tech
Reply-To: xx@yy.com
Message-ID: <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
X-Trace: sv3-NeviuCKhW7gq+KcnKLZgBmqFp0y8+dBVyDRSKhCHzfVgaPLJfQU9UNktIJBeibfmoPXbdd3jXL1lO4F!s0cF7QPNsK706NBEkhV6ThAUVV6I10A1SJkzx47H1cpEMsCaiEt3/lhwWK2jw4uefzxxIJYGepnS!qg8uWg==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Received-Bytes: 2290
Path: not-for-mail
From: Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 06:12:05 GMT
Message-ID: <uiv33l$1g1ta$1@solani.org>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 06:12:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="1574826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UqKvZl7ug0vl0VHn8HviXVlES4Y=
X-Newsreader-location: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (c) 'LIGHTSPEED' off line news reader for the Linux platform
NewsFleX homepage: http://www.panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/ and ftp download ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/news/readers/
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXFFrAc1aR/09YQo8dNxEMcDg9dh/cbhdC5XaW0tZuLfaRKgsiIXuPsbdne3VCMDjm+wFM6BT9
X-Received-Bytes: 5041
Path: not-for-mail
From: Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 18:09:23 +0200
Organization: TGI
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com>
Reply-To: dp@tgi-sci.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:09:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9fafad3c3d2fc760e1d40da89e4c8a02";
logging-data="1367656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yjcJzPbv60hPFVTrfvkaG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0eUdMlVQ/x2jmVL7SmXOfqPdVhM=
In-Reply-To: <r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 2906
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath >>>> failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip
instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during >>>> that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
On 14/11/2023 15:38, John Larkin wrote:chips.'
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:47:13 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure
Too many US lawyers and no common sense.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
Windows 11 is obvious proof.Win11 isn't all that bad (Win8 was a dog's dinner). If you don't like it then install Ubuntu or one of the other free Unix clones instead.
Then you really will have a secure OS on an x86 chip (provided that you configure it correctly). The learning curve on Unix is a bit steep
though but it is useable out of the box. I'm running my copy as a guest
OS under Win11 Pro via VMWare because the MS virtualisation sucks.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:47:13 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>'
wrote:
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
Windows 11 is obvious proof.
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:294d:b0:773:eed7:76ad with SMTP id n13-20020a05620a294d00b00773eed776admr134585qkp.11.1700052200394;
Wed, 15 Nov 2023 04:43:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:4282:b0:1cc:2bff:fe61 with SMTP id
ju2-20020a170903428200b001cc2bfffe61mr1414346plb.3.1700052200044; Wed, 15 Nov
2023 04:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 04:43:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.225.196.250; posting-account=mW5JKwkAAAAMyuWOVeLp8yffyAkVx0g7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.225.196.250
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me> User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5d701133-5dc6-467f-9a05-c44523ac8651n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk>
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:43:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3338
Path: not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:57:48 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <uj2bo3$1nro4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:57:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da074032933b93e032349712827090fb"; logging-data="1830660"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UjHEIsyTTttYVYjB86epDl4Fkmh5uUpRRdJHqGOC9xA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w2PBoR983jjXRW2W0ZNP74tfl9M=
In-Reply-To: <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Received-Bytes: 3584
On 14/11/2023 15:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath >>>>> failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip
instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during >>>>> that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
It isn't the x86's fault that consumer OS's are insecure it is the far
too much code running at high privilege levels required for gaming.
IBM's OS/2 was a pretty secure OS on the x86 for its day. Had it been
for 386 and above only then history might have been different. Making it
work on the legacy 286 was an incredibly stupid idea that let Win3 gain
the upper hand. Conflated with it was the launch of the PS/2 hardware
with its MCA bus made all the rival PC makers club together against IBM.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with both barrels, reloading
and doing it again...
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
The devil is *always* in the details. Only someone who has never worked
on highly parallel systems would suggest such a naive approach.
Once you go beyond 4 CPUs coordinating who has access to what and when >becomes ever more complicated. The most important task is invariably the
one that farms out work to the others so that they are all doing useful
work. It is quite easy to end up using more power to do less if you push >number of CPU cores too high. Particularly in problems where smart
pruning of the tree can eliminated large chunks of brute force work.
Graphics cards and CUDA already provide massively parallel CPUs for
tasks which are amenable to such treatment. AI and some scientific
computing can be done this way very efficiently.
Once you go beyond 4 CPUs coordinating who has access to what and when becomes
ever more complicated.
The most important task is invariably the one that farms
out work to the others so that they are all doing useful work.
It is quite easy
to end up using more power to do less if you push number of CPU cores too high.
Particularly in problems where smart pruning of the tree can eliminated large chunks of brute force work.
Graphics cards and CUDA already provide massively parallel CPUs for tasks which
are amenable to such treatment. AI and some scientific computing can be done this way very efficiently.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
On 11/14/2023 17:38, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:47:13 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86
goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty
chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability,
and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
Windows 11 is obvious proof.
I was offered it a few times on my windows 10 laptop (named tvset3...)
and so far I was allowed to decline. A neighbour came a few days ago
for help (I sometimes serve as IT to helpless neighbours) who had
clicked accept... His problem was they wanted to force him into
having a PIN number, the screen after that looked weird but
usable. I don't know how much of it can be brought back to "normal"
as one sees what normal is but judging by your outcry it must be
really bad. Eventually they will force us all into it I guess,
I can swallow that as I use it for reading pdf-s and browsing,
plus the occasional ltspice.
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d847:0:b0:66d:101e:9f11 with SMTP id i7-20020a0cd847000000b0066d101e9f11mr137228qvj.8.1700069946416;
Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:efcc:b0:1cc:2549:c281 with SMTP id
ja12-20020a170902efcc00b001cc2549c281mr1694280plb.13.1700069946092; Wed, 15
Nov 2023 09:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 17:39:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2436
Then you really will have a secure OS on an x86 chip (provided that you configure it correctly). The learning curve on Unix is a bit steep though but it is useable out of the box. I'm running my copy as a guest OS under Win11 Pro
via VMWare because the MS virtualisation sucks.
I have finally had to install Ubuntu myself to gain access to exotic software that is only available on Unix (and porting it to Windows would be incredibly tedious and error prone which is why no-one ever has).
I'm quite impressed with it so far and Maxima is much more stable on the Unix platform which is an unexpected bonus for me (likewise I suspect for Latex too). I may yet make the change to becoming a Unix advocate.
In future there are some things that I will now do under Unix because it works
better there than on Windows rather than because there is no equivalent on Windows (which is what motivated me to jump ship).
Path: not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:48:56 +0000
From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 07:48:29 -0800
Organization: Highland Tech
Reply-To: xx@yy.com
Message-ID: <2pp9lilnjguvunre4bjo8etijfk1oaohpa@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <uj2bo3$1nro4$1@dont-email.me>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 64
X-Trace: sv3-XvZqwJpsyGrVjEvxwj4dLdoq21jDApq1ssX3K4xrbL7XiebrWYztFA8m2G4KuZ9X5Ea/IGs8N7bnOGy!D3ZJ9xoFY+SxQ09J/HgooM4Zo2s+Dzd7ICvoA8h8xhK3Hl8q/vEG8Pwhd27Gj87vygwO0dd4h6Ir!E1Zfig==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Received-Bytes: 4300
Path: not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 10:09:53 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <uj2u18$1qs7f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <uj2bo3$1nro4$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 17:10:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d54e60bac4869010f681b4fb05599286";
logging-data="1929455"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Pp2tocJVidCZTzffIxJQm"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4/fFPKttHRMJqKiCV7wHQgmyx2o=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uj2bo3$1nro4$1@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 4185
Path: not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:16:42 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <uj31uf$1rfa0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da074032933b93e032349712827090fb";
logging-data="1948992"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UwALQzrfxFIoFKcvTCSfVm+whOoe3K5fdemZ8EULoLw=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PmRYIptwRw4VNY9YZhwaD9YaZMk=
In-Reply-To: <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Received-Bytes: 3848
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and occupies
more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Path: not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:52:01 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <uj340o$1rrht$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:52:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d54e60bac4869010f681b4fb05599286";
logging-data="1961533"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18T8t6LHW4UjPCoJGFYYSy+"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hNyz3KxHPH6tJPEDCEH0cEDOAsw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 3329
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're
humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
On 14/11/2023 16:09, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 11/14/2023 17:38, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:47:13 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:
On 11/13/2023 19:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86
goliath failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty
chip instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability,
and during that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
At least we can stay optimistic :-). Then what, ARM or Risc-V...
That at a time when power is still around, and IBM made it freely
license a couple of years ago.
The rest cannot even sort out their endianness nonsense.
I am not sure if anyone actually realizes how *wast* the bloat is.
Windows 11 is obvious proof.
I was offered it a few times on my windows 10 laptop (named tvset3...)
and so far I was allowed to decline. A neighbour came a few days ago
for help (I sometimes serve as IT to helpless neighbours) who had
clicked accept... His problem was they wanted to force him into
having a PIN number, the screen after that looked weird but
usable. I don't know how much of it can be brought back to "normal"
as one sees what normal is but judging by your outcry it must be
really bad. Eventually they will force us all into it I guess,
I can swallow that as I use it for reading pdf-s and browsing,
plus the occasional ltspice.
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and >occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Win10 is going officially unsupported sometime soon in 2025. I expect it
will get a reprieve or there will be a global malware catastrophe.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-windows-10-is-a-security-disaster-waiting-to-happen/
Win11 main advantage for me is that it understands performance cores on
the more recent Intel CPUs. That is a kludge in Win10.
The last truly dreadful edition of windows was Win8.
Think Picasso on a bad acid trip and you will not be too far off.
Path: not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 22:01:18 +0000
From: john larkin <jl@650pot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 14:01:18 -0800
Message-ID: <kifalit7mrjn9fcieugqi3vibtbe83lfbj@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me> <r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me> <uj31uf$1rfa0$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 66
X-Trace: sv3-DTxSNgpg3br4iF94EXd6RMoWgGw5MTrPq6Lq2Pmnk2gRNgFppoUUg9sscrN6fqsymUSkizBRT9ngLrA!QFMjrfwe9xRX9XFU6EYORxdxPb8DFs0u1qUOXC1b0lnwERIv0ZqLy6QvWo2vxrEb7jKSKA4T1v9L!DIVAgQ==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Received-Bytes: 4506
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:57:48 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 15:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
'Intel has been sued by a handful of PC buyers who claim the x86 goliath
failed to act when informed five years ago about faulty chip
instructions that allowed the recent Downfall vulnerability, and during
that period sold billions of insecure chips.'
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/intel_downfall_lawsuit/
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
It isn't the x86's fault that consumer OS's are insecure it is the far
too much code running at high privilege levels required for gaming.
IBM's OS/2 was a pretty secure OS on the x86 for its day. Had it been
for 386 and above only then history might have been different. Making it >work on the legacy 286 was an incredibly stupid idea that let Win3 gain >the upper hand. Conflated with it was the launch of the PS/2 hardware
with its MCA bus made all the rival PC makers club together against IBM.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with both barrels, reloading
and doing it again...
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
The devil is *always* in the details. Only someone who has never worked
on highly parallel systems would suggest such a naive approach.
Absolute hardware protection isn't naive. It's not even hard. But
you've got to want to do it.
Why do you always revert to insults, and not make rational cases for your opinions?
Most people do that, because lame insults are much easier than thinking.
Once you go beyond 4 CPUs coordinating who has access to what and when >becomes ever more complicated. The most important task is invariably the >one that farms out work to the others so that they are all doing useful >work. It is quite easy to end up using more power to do less if you push >number of CPU cores too high. Particularly in problems where smart
pruning of the tree can eliminated large chunks of brute force work.
Graphics cards and CUDA already provide massively parallel CPUs for
tasks which are amenable to such treatment. AI and some scientific >computing can be done this way very efficiently.
That doesn't make the OS any more secure. All that hung-on hardware just creates more opportunities for hacks.\\
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
It makes sense, if you think and give it a chance. Don't apply the
current big-OS multiprocessor multithread paradigm.
One CPU is the master manager.
Some CPUs are dedicated to be services, like device drivers, file
handlers, internet interfaces, user interfaces.
Then some CPUs run applications. Some have lots of power, including
floating point, some are dinky. Probably two catagories.
Every CPU has its own small ram, cache, and an access mechanism to
main external DRAMs. Every CPU has absolute hardware protection.
Violate the rules and die.
The limit on a multicore chip will be thermal.
CPUs used to be a rare, expensive resource. We have plenty of compute
power now. Let's use it for reliability.
Not that current OS's are resource efficient. DOS on an 8088 did some
things faster than my new monster with 20K times the resources.
On 11/15/2023 11:16 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and
occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Save for a generation of machines with 8GB *hardware* memory limits...
OTOH, I can run a *BSD box with *megabytes* of RAM if I am willing
to live witht he thrashing (which, unlike windows machines,
won't take the machine to its knees)
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:16:42 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 16:09, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
I can swallow that as I use it for reading pdf-s and browsing,
plus the occasional ltspice.
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and
occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Win10 is going officially unsupported sometime soon in 2025. I expect it
will get a reprieve or there will be a global malware catastrophe.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-windows-10-is-a-security-disaster-waiting-to-happen/
Win11 main advantage for me is that it understands performance cores on
the more recent Intel CPUs. That is a kludge in Win10.
The last truly dreadful edition of windows was Win8.
Think Picasso on a bad acid trip and you will not be too far off.
I miss Win7, but most of the machines have died.
Win11 got terrible user reviews, but update 23H2 fixed a lot of
stupidities. It's almost tolerable, after a lot of tweaks.
It runs Firefox, LT Spice, PADS, VLC, Crimson, Agent, Irfanview, and a
bunch of my old compiled PowerBasic programs. And seems reliable so
far.
On 15/11/2023 18:54, Don Y wrote:
On 11/15/2023 11:16 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and
occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Save for a generation of machines with 8GB *hardware* memory limits...
It was ever thus. Time was when each new OS required almost all of the hardware
currently in use to be replaced.
OTOH, I can run a *BSD box with *megabytes* of RAM if I am willing
to live witht he thrashing (which, unlike windows machines,
won't take the machine to its knees)
I can recall a time back when big iron had a whopping (for the time) 4MB of main memory and when you you had to get a special ticket to allow your jobs to
use more than 1MB at a time. Lisp wouldn't run in less.
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
It makes sense, if you think and give it a chance. Don't apply the
current big-OS multiprocessor multithread paradigm.
One CPU is the master manager.
Some CPUs are dedicated to be services, like device drivers, file
handlers, internet interfaces, user interfaces.
Then some CPUs run applications. Some have lots of power, including
floating point, some are dinky. Probably two catagories.
Every CPU has its own small ram, cache, and an access mechanism to
main external DRAMs. Every CPU has absolute hardware protection.
Violate the rules and die.
The limit on a multicore chip will be thermal.
CPUs used to be a rare, expensive resource. We have plenty of compute
power now. Let's use it for reliability.
Not that current OS's are resource efficient. DOS on an 8088 did some
things faster than my new monster with 20K times the resources.
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:cc3:b0:778:9aed:d94 with SMTP id b3-20020a05620a0cc300b007789aed0d94mr150749qkj.9.1700113964813;
Wed, 15 Nov 2023 21:52:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:3310:b0:1ca:a290:4c1e with SMTP id
jk16-20020a170903331000b001caa2904c1emr2068376plb.0.1700113964418; Wed, 15
Nov 2023 21:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 21:52:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2pp9lilnjguvunre4bjo8etijfk1oaohpa@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=59.102.83.245; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <uj2bo3$1nro4$1@dont-email.me> <2pp9lilnjguvunre4bjo8etijfk1oaohpa@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <86790735-c14c-438b-ba8f-94cb4309fd55n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 05:52:44 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4848
Path: not-for-mail48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com>
From: Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:44:00 GMT
Message-ID: <uj4dng$1iu06$1@solani.org>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:44:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="1669126"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LtA1U6tQ+EiNZzSa3rKlX6zyaS0=
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXCtKq5wiD/09YwiVT7RAVHI6HTUPxCNXbWd8E0Dh0+7TZflIXqcgxntWJhVchN1jz/kLnFLQ=
X-Newsreader-location: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (c) 'LIGHTSPEED' off line news reader for the Linux platform
NewsFleX homepage: http://www.panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/ and ftp download ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/news/readers/
X-Received-Bytes: 4431
Path: not-for-mail48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com>
From: upsidedown@downunder.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Message-ID: <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 61
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Bytes: 3196
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200
X-Received-Bytes: 3401
Path: not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:04:38 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <uj4t0d$280cn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me>
<uj31uf$1rfa0$1@dont-email.me> <uj344f$1rrht$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:04:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2da3cb937c29cf8f833fe24ff58e8472";
logging-data="2359703"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IFdYOqOzG1T5eNz35gQA9vAy59ZdLiaksc7+7MmwFxw=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:au5/1zZ5I+98LcxotmoM3egeSoI=
In-Reply-To: <uj344f$1rrht$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Received-Bytes: 2145
Path: not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 05:56:49 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <uj53ip$291os$3@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
<b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
<48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com>
<rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:56:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b553efc9136b6b985c933d38aaa2701";
logging-data="2393884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IlJzOnF+PQrLHbM/bPGlo"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NOIS8LYBKqfi2cNHR5cbLtV0Pq0=
In-Reply-To: <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 2827
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo >simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
On 15/11/2023 22:01, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:16:42 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 16:09, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
I can swallow that as I use it for reading pdf-s and browsing,
plus the occasional ltspice.
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and
occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Win10 is going officially unsupported sometime soon in 2025. I expect it >>> will get a reprieve or there will be a global malware catastrophe.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-windows-10-is-a-security-disaster-waiting-to-happen/
Win11 main advantage for me is that it understands performance cores on
the more recent Intel CPUs. That is a kludge in Win10.
The last truly dreadful edition of windows was Win8.
Think Picasso on a bad acid trip and you will not be too far off.
I miss Win7, but most of the machines have died.
Win7 will run on modern CPUs although I wouldn't recommend it unless you >either have a damn good impenetrable firewall (plenty of ancient big >scientific instruments still work that way 20 year design life -
although clever virtualisation of antique hardware environments are
getting around that).
You can extract the original license key from old kit with suitable
tools - although the license server may now have disappeared so you
cannot register new hardware to run Win7. It means that certain
motherboards have premium prices in the second hand market.
You can make Win11 look enough like WIn7 to be acceptable.
Win11 got terrible user reviews, but update 23H2 fixed a lot of
stupidities. It's almost tolerable, after a lot of tweaks.
It runs Firefox, LT Spice, PADS, VLC, Crimson, Agent, Irfanview, and a
bunch of my old compiled PowerBasic programs. And seems reliable so
far.
None of those are particularly taxing. The big change was when 32bit
code (and before that 16bit) became unsupported.
That broke a lot of major players installers like Adobe Photoshop and
others.
You just like to whinge and whine about Intel and Microsoft.
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e84b:0:b0:66d:365:a767 with SMTP id l11-20020a0ce84b000000b0066d0365a767mr191203qvo.8.1700151892835;
Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:24:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e54b:b0:280:7ea4:7d04 with SMTP id
ei11-20020a17090ae54b00b002807ea47d04mr4711086pjb.6.1700151892463; Thu, 16
Nov 2023 08:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:24:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
<48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
<eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:24:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4071
Path: not-for-mailkifalit7mrjn9fcieugqi3vibtbe83lfbj@4ax.com> <uj4tnm$284bt$2@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:48:24 +0000
From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:47:56 -0800
Organization: Highland Tech
Reply-To: xx@yy.com
Message-ID: <1shclip7hihi6amkbe8bjgpnlsr00jt3cb@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me> <r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me> <uj31uf$1rfa0$1@dont-email.me> <
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 58
X-Trace: sv3-We7GOh7itvoqfAnN14Lz7c4PI6OPo5wCT1eJFV5qBGhWOoMrTBu8Z970Kr162JOPKOn/G29o6p5sn8c!BuLe7G14h4bsvg22tabTmxKEMp5+BK/x4QfxyxicuPmCXnc1ETvnkbMMLTsGmWROZ6abpqKt1+zc!IjluJQ==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3826
X-Received-Bytes: 3964
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:11:24?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're
humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >> >>>"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
Well, to start, the economics of having that many mechanisms, and
the 'top-level' structure encouraging a single point of failure.
The real issue, though, is that bugs fall through the cracks
in folks' mental models of what their tools do.
There's lots of users of SPICE that don't understand the
matrix solution of simultaneous equations and Kirchhoff's rules
for setting up those equations. That implies that they
don't understand SPICE, either. The human at the top
isn't really in control, when that happens.
Path: not-for-mail48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 18:22:06 +0000
From: john larkin <jl@650pot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:22:06 -0800
Message-ID: <36nclil8bnf2bbdkg1damb71r86v4fh95h@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 65
X-Trace: sv3-81XzLwQkL4PQCvdBSoSOcdbCev+aCI/oQxXDHfBY6mkZ1aY50vXD44Jby3t27mtRsWqwHLpoOWEmEmp!kg2dPzlr4y4x9KvGfQ21Tc7LeLtKhz4A6xHkI7thWz+3//2dE6QH2CxTXei6CFBr8mDRVUBNZLTX!8Rd6LA==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4328
X-Received-Bytes: 4466
Well, to start, the economics of having that many mechanisms, and
the 'top-level' structure encouraging a single point of failure.
The real issue, though, is that bugs fall through the cracks
in folks' mental models of what their tools do.
There's lots of users of SPICE that don't understand the
matrix solution of simultaneous equations and Kirchhoff's rules
for setting up those equations. That implies that they
don't understand SPICE, either. The human at the top
isn't really in control, when that happens.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure
operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;)
Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're
humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
The trick is to stop thinking about sharing one giant complex
multitasked CPU to do everything, and making that safe... which seems
to be impossible. CPUs have become cheap and software has become
bloated.
I wish that virtual memory had never been invented. And that Intel had
stuck to making DRAM.
On 2023-11-16 11:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally.
We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
You're making a lot of counterfactual assumptions here. For instance:
1. No single task needs more than 0.1% of the capacity of the chip.
2. Similarly, there is no need for hardware acceleration, or else you
can have hundreds of FPUs, for instance, each big enough to handle a
nice fast SPICE simulation (because by hypothesis they can't cooperate).
3. Interprocess communication, e.g. shared memory or nonlocally-coherent >cache, is not important.
4. You can have enough interconnection hardware for hundreds of cores to >access shared resources such as main memory, disk, graphics memory, USB, >mouse & keyboard, and so on, completely independently.
5. Those shared resources are completely immune to compromise themselves.
And on and on.
What you're describing is more like 1024 elevator controllers in a bag,
with no elevators attached. It wouldn't be a useful box for general use.
The trick is to stop thinking about sharing one giant complex
multitasked CPU to do everything, and making that safe... which seems
to be impossible. CPUs have become cheap and software has become
bloated.
I wish that virtual memory had never been invented. And that Intel had
stuck to making DRAM.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
(Former optical interconnect person)
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:11:24?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
Well, to start, the economics of having that many mechanisms, and
the 'top-level' structure encouraging a single point of failure.
The real issue, though, is that bugs fall through the cracks
in folks' mental models of what their tools do.
There's lots of users of SPICE that don't understand the
matrix solution of simultaneous equations and Kirchhoff's rules
for setting up those equations. That implies that they
don't understand SPICE, either. The human at the top
isn't really in control, when that happens.
I don't need to understand the code inside Spice. I just need to use
it.
I don't automatically trust a Spice sim anyhow. As Mike E famously
said, the main function of Spice is to train your instincts.
I recently added a 1 ohm resistor to a Spice model, one end grounded
and the other just open. It decreased sim time by a factor of
thousands. Explain that for us please.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:04:31 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2023-11-16 11:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
You're making a lot of counterfactual assumptions here. For instance:
1. No single task needs more than 0.1% of the capacity of the chip.I never said that.
2. Similarly, there is no need for hardware acceleration, or else youcan't work together, with shared memory. The OS can set that up, still
can have hundreds of FPUs, for instance, each big enough to handle a
nice fast SPICE simulation (because by hypothesis they can't cooperate). Spice already uses multiple CPUs. There's no reason that some CPUs
with absolute hardware protections.
3. Interprocess communication, e.g. shared memory or nonlocally-coherent >cache, is not important.Of course it's important. Just do it right.
4. You can have enough interconnection hardware for hundreds of cores to >access shared resources such as main memory, disk, graphics memory, USB, >mouse & keyboard, and so on, completely independently.Most service-type CPUs (drivers, file servers, internet server) can be accessed by an application program any number of ways. Bloated OSs do
that now, just very badly.
5. Those shared resources are completely immune to compromise themselves.A driver program can be very carefully designed and tested and
ultimately debugged. After that, no other process can corrupt it
because the hardware won't allow it.
It's interesting how many bugs I see in procedural code, and how few I
see in FPGA programs. We are a lot better at hardware design than
software sloshing.
And on and on.
What you're describing is more like 1024 elevator controllers in a bag, >with no elevators attached. It wouldn't be a useful box for general use.It would be wonderful as a general-purpose PC.
The trick is to stop thinking about sharing one giant complex
multitasked CPU to do everything, and making that safe... which seems
to be impossible. CPUs have become cheap and software has become
bloated.
I wish that virtual memory had never been invented. And that Intel had
stuck to making DRAM.
Cheers
Phil HobbsSo, in 2053, we will be running a 64-core 150 GHz x86
(Former optical interconnect person)
On 11/16/23 19:22, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:11:24?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>>>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
Well, to start, the economics of having that many mechanisms, and
the 'top-level' structure encouraging a single point of failure.
The real issue, though, is that bugs fall through the cracks
in folks' mental models of what their tools do.
There's lots of users of SPICE that don't understand the
matrix solution of simultaneous equations and Kirchhoff's rules
for setting up those equations. That implies that they
don't understand SPICE, either. The human at the top
isn't really in control, when that happens.
I don't need to understand the code inside Spice. I just need to use
it.
I don't automatically trust a Spice sim anyhow. As Mike E famously
said, the main function of Spice is to train your instincts.
I recently added a 1 ohm resistor to a Spice model, one end grounded
and the other just open. It decreased sim time by a factor of
thousands. Explain that for us please.
You probably had something dodgy in your circuit, like a node
without DC path, a loop with zero resistance, or a lossless
resonator.
Jeroen Belleman
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:04:31 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2023-11-16 11:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
You're making a lot of counterfactual assumptions here. For instance:
1. No single task needs more than 0.1% of the capacity of the chip.
I never said that.
2. Similarly, there is no need for hardware acceleration, or else you
can have hundreds of FPUs, for instance, each big enough to handle a
nice fast SPICE simulation (because by hypothesis they can't cooperate).
Spice already uses multiple CPUs. There's no reason that some CPUs
can't work together, with shared memory. The OS can set that up, still
with absolute hardware protections.
3. Interprocess communication, e.g. shared memory or nonlocally-coherent
cache, is not important.
Of course it's important. Just do it right.
4. You can have enough interconnection hardware for hundreds of cores to
access shared resources such as main memory, disk, graphics memory, USB,
mouse & keyboard, and so on, completely independently.
Most service-type CPUs (drivers, file servers, internet server) can be accessed by an application program any number of ways. Bloated OSs do
that now, just very badly.
5. Those shared resources are completely immune to compromise themselves.
A driver program can be very carefully designed and tested and
ultimately debugged. After that, no other process can corrupt it
because the hardware won't allow it.
It's interesting how many bugs I see in procedural code, and how few I
see in FPGA programs. We are a lot better at hardware design than
software sloshing.
And on and on.
What you're describing is more like 1024 elevator controllers in a bag,
with no elevators attached. It wouldn't be a useful box for general use.
It would be wonderful as a general-purpose PC.
The trick is to stop thinking about sharing one giant complex
multitasked CPU to do everything, and making that safe... which seems
to be impossible. CPUs have become cheap and software has become
bloated.
I wish that virtual memory had never been invented. And that Intel had
stuck to making DRAM.
So, in 2053, we will be running a 64-core 150 GHz x86 with terabytes
of dram. The OS will fill up all of the dram so we'll still be
thrashing. Figure maybe 60 million page faults per second.
The OS will download and install an update every hour and cold start
will take a full day. It will crash a few times per day. Microsoft
will insist on your house as collateral to order a subscription to
Windows 473.
Unless someone has a better idea. What's yours?
Path: not-for-mail48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com> <36nclil8bnf2bbdkg1damb71r86v4fh95h@4ax.com>
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:29:56 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <uj654o$2es19$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 22:29:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9633d5a4bd8168b949f9c6636f23adf3"; logging-data="2584617"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1c4D9TWODNUDGPjjob7os"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B6BTgowxI0qx8uX9webYIdeVRCQ=
In-Reply-To: <36nclil8bnf2bbdkg1damb71r86v4fh95h@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 4683
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4701:0:b0:671:2af6:8d60 with SMTP id qb1-20020ad44701000000b006712af68d60mr80207qvb.5.1700176037685;
Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:558c:b0:283:98d1:89ee with SMTP id
c12-20020a17090a558c00b0028398d189eemr66132pji.0.1700176037291; Thu, 16 Nov
2023 15:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:07:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <r35dli1au3siiieroone1clgvu303t85lf@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=94.145.228.129; posting-account=mW5JKwkAAAAMyuWOVeLp8yffyAkVx0g7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 94.145.228.129
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
<48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
<eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <62ea37b3-ffd9-fc6b-de7b-894fef274021@electrooptical.net>
<r35dli1au3siiieroone1clgvu303t85lf@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fd3363e6-558f-4ac4-9e7e-74b019f6887an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk>
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:07:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 6154
Path: not-for-mailrk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com> <36nclil8bnf2bbdkg1damb71r86v4fh95h@4ax.com> <uj654o$2es19$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:53:24 +0000
From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:52:56 -0800
Organization: Highland Tech
Reply-To: xx@yy.com
Message-ID: <1padli5n5v4o67l9lif9hicc0djl7jsd81@4ax.com>
References: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 78
X-Trace: sv3-NuMrmGta4z0GQxEy0h9ry1Ng+4sozFYy6hEYPrlseE83xeVbf9U4lFi2aVqqBMx+DM6YSO+GdZk1gYy!dljvnCCuMgzB2pOp8He4fslprkJQg+fPUElMyrMH8V60F7jrSELEQUvSBpi7hNDWdUds6OBv4iCX!M4qihA==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Received-Bytes: 5095
Path: not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:59:26 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <uj5sb6$2dh3m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
<b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
<48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com>
<rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
<eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com>
<6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 19:59:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b553efc9136b6b985c933d38aaa2701";
logging-data="2540662"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zeKynlE9vIITt1LWJdF/M"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:75DlL/jw5epEH1sXPu8Fx8hL0Eo=
In-Reply-To: <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com> Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 4295
Path: not-for-mail48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com>
From: Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:04:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <62ea37b3-ffd9-fc6b-de7b-894fef274021@electrooptical.net> References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a82f5870083be59ddc2c8df043d40ed5"; logging-data="2542444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QcT/6xngEPUhLX4kJg+Tg"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mm4G939F/kBGf8F6kBVLqGaFHBk=
In-Reply-To: <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com>
X-Received-Bytes: 4730
On 2023-11-16 17:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:04:31 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2023-11-16 11:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add >>>>>>> "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file
server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
You're making a lot of counterfactual assumptions here. For instance:
1. No single task needs more than 0.1% of the capacity of the chip.
I never said that.
No, you didn't, but if there's no close cooperation between cores,
that's where you wind up. To do anything useful together, the cores
have to be able to share at least memory and a filesystem, which blows
the safety of your scheme.
2. Similarly, there is no need for hardware acceleration, or else you
can have hundreds of FPUs, for instance, each big enough to handle a
nice fast SPICE simulation (because by hypothesis they can't cooperate).
Spice already uses multiple CPUs. There's no reason that some CPUs
can't work together, with shared memory. The OS can set that up, still
with absolute hardware protections.
Magic is happening here someplace. You can't keep things separate and >together at the same time.
3. Interprocess communication, e.g. shared memory or nonlocally-coherent >>> cache, is not important.
Of course it's important. Just do it right.
I'd love to hear just how that works without opening the sorts of >vulnerabilities you claim to avoid. I certainly don't know how to do it.
4. You can have enough interconnection hardware for hundreds of cores to >>> access shared resources such as main memory, disk, graphics memory, USB, >>> mouse & keyboard, and so on, completely independently.
Most service-type CPUs (drivers, file servers, internet server) can be
accessed by an application program any number of ways. Bloated OSs do
that now, just very badly.
But you don't specify how it could be done better.
5. Those shared resources are completely immune to compromise themselves. >>A driver program can be very carefully designed and tested and
ultimately debugged. After that, no other process can corrupt it
because the hardware won't allow it.
But it has to
It's interesting how many bugs I see in procedural code, and how few I
see in FPGA programs. We are a lot better at hardware design than
software sloshing.
It would be wonderful as a general-purpose PC.
And on and on.
What you're describing is more like 1024 elevator controllers in a bag,
with no elevators attached. It wouldn't be a useful box for general use. >>
That's what the earliest massively-parallel enthusiasts thought. Stuff
from the '80s like the Connection Machine, the Computing Surface, et al.
Didn't work for beans for general-purpose computing, because there
aren't good ways to apply fine-grained parallelism to the great majority
of important problems.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 19:49:18 -0500, Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2023-11-16 17:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:04:31 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2023-11-16 11:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file >>>>> server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
You're making a lot of counterfactual assumptions here. For instance: >>>>
1. No single task needs more than 0.1% of the capacity of the chip.
I never said that.
No, you didn't, but if there's no close cooperation between cores,
that's where you wind up. To do anything useful together, the cores
have to be able to share at least memory and a filesystem, which blows
the safety of your scheme.
If one core is a proven secure file server that does nothing else,
flakey apps would run on other cores and make requests for file
service, using some hardware-secure interprocess communication means.
Has Wintel ever made sure that it's impossible to execute in data or
stack spaces? Or that a shared cache can never be compromised? Do they
even have a read-only-data mapping mode?
Wintel's attutude is to execute anything.
2. Similarly, there is no need for hardware acceleration, or else youSpice already uses multiple CPUs. There's no reason that some CPUs
can have hundreds of FPUs, for instance, each big enough to handle a
nice fast SPICE simulation (because by hypothesis they can't cooperate). >>>
can't work together, with shared memory. The OS can set that up, still
with absolute hardware protections.
Magic is happening here someplace. You can't keep things separate and >>together at the same time.
Separate processors on the same chip, with hardware protections.
That's not hard to do if you really want to do it.
3. Interprocess communication, e.g. shared memory or nonlocally-coherent >>>> cache, is not important.
Of course it's important. Just do it right.
I'd love to hear just how that works without opening the sorts of >>vulnerabilities you claim to avoid. I certainly don't know how to do it.
Hardware message queues is one way. FPGAs and even RP2040 can do that.
A file server can examine requests and reject unsafe ones. But no
queued request can crash the file server, or DMA into someone else's
space. That's not hard to enforce, as long as you really want to.
4. You can have enough interconnection hardware for hundreds of cores to >>>> access shared resources such as main memory, disk, graphics memory, USB, >>>> mouse & keyboard, and so on, completely independently.
Most service-type CPUs (drivers, file servers, internet server) can be
accessed by an application program any number of ways. Bloated OSs do
that now, just very badly.
But you don't specify how it could be done better.
Absolute hardware protection and safe inter-processor messaging.
Sacrifice a bit of speed for safety. 256 GHz-class ARM processors
should be enough processing power for the average citizen.
5. Those shared resources are completely immune to compromise themselves. >>>A driver program can be very carefully designed and tested and
ultimately debugged. After that, no other process can corrupt it
because the hardware won't allow it.
But it has to
A CPU has to allow itself to be corrupted? OK, it's hopeless.
It's interesting how many bugs I see in procedural code, and how few I
see in FPGA programs. We are a lot better at hardware design than
software sloshing.
It would be wonderful as a general-purpose PC.
And on and on.
What you're describing is more like 1024 elevator controllers in a bag, >>>> with no elevators attached. It wouldn't be a useful box for general use. >>>
That's what the earliest massively-parallel enthusiasts thought. Stuff >>from the '80s like the Connection Machine, the Computing Surface, et al.
Didn't work for beans for general-purpose computing, because there
aren't good ways to apply fine-grained parallelism to the great majority
of important problems.
So avoid fine-grained parallelism.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:29:56 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/16/23 19:22, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:11:24?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file >>>>> server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
Well, to start, the economics of having that many mechanisms, and
the 'top-level' structure encouraging a single point of failure.
The real issue, though, is that bugs fall through the cracks
in folks' mental models of what their tools do.
There's lots of users of SPICE that don't understand the
matrix solution of simultaneous equations and Kirchhoff's rules
for setting up those equations. That implies that they
don't understand SPICE, either. The human at the top
isn't really in control, when that happens.
I don't need to understand the code inside Spice. I just need to use
it.
I don't automatically trust a Spice sim anyhow. As Mike E famously
said, the main function of Spice is to train your instincts.
I recently added a 1 ohm resistor to a Spice model, one end grounded
and the other just open. It decreased sim time by a factor of
thousands. Explain that for us please.
You probably had something dodgy in your circuit, like a node
without DC path, a loop with zero resistance, or a lossless
resonator.
Jeroen Belleman
Why did the 1 ohm resistor fix that?
Absolute hardware protection and safe inter-processor messaging.
Sacrifice a bit of speed for safety. 256 GHz-class ARM processors
should be enough processing power for the average citizen.
Enough power, yes; an effective tool, no. 256 processors and one
citizen is like 256 motors driving a four-wheel vehicle. It's the connections
that kill your economics.
As for absolute hardware protection, protecting means making
access impossible?
Cone-of-silence security, in other words. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWtPPWi6OMQ>
On 11/15/2023 5:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
I have finally had to install Ubuntu myself to gain access to exotic
software that is only available on Unix (and porting it to Windows
would be incredibly tedious and error prone which is why no-one ever
has).
Why have you (presumably) avoided it? Most Eunices install a lot easier (and quicker!) than Windows. The only tough part is if you want to offer specific network services on a host (name, file transfer, SMB, packet filtering, etc.). There, the UIs tend to be pretty archaic (read:
non-GUI) and often cryptic. Best not tackled by newbies.
I'm quite impressed with it so far and Maxima is much more stable on
the Unix platform which is an unexpected bonus for me (likewise I
suspect for Latex too). I may yet make the change to becoming a Unix
advocate.
In future there are some things that I will now do under Unix because
it works better there than on Windows rather than because there is no
equivalent on Windows (which is what motivated me to jump ship).
My approach has sort of been the opposite: using UN*X for the
important things and Windows for those things that are more
"window dressing" (documentation, CAD/EDA, multimedia, etc.).
I've not used a Windows-based toolchain for ages (since VC1.0!)
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:37:48?PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
Absolute hardware protection and safe inter-processor messaging.
Sacrifice a bit of speed for safety. 256 GHz-class ARM processors
should be enough processing power for the average citizen.
Enough power, yes; an effective tool, no. 256 processors and one
citizen is like 256 motors driving a four-wheel vehicle. It's the connections
that kill your economics.
As for absolute hardware protection, protecting means making
access impossible?
Cone-of-silence security, in other words. ><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWtPPWi6OMQ>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:29:56 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/16/23 19:22, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:24:51 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:11:24?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:44:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:48:30 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>I disagree. One CPU can run the top-level OS. One CPU can be the file >>>>> server. One can be the internet interface. And so on. Some can run
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:39:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:37:37?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:We cannot rationally manage a congress of a few hundred when they're >>>>>>>> humans, why do you expect we can handle intercommunicating
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some day we will be free of x86 and freed from bloated insecure >>>>>>>>>>> operating systems.
Well, we can go back to banging rocks together anytime we like. ;) >>>>>>>>Or put 1024 risc processors on a chip and manage them rationally. >>>>>>>>
'risc processors' either? The experience with humans is
well documented, hasn't changed much since
<https://archive.org/details/mackay-popular-delusions>
So, to the idea of rationally managing 1024 risk processors, I will add
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..."
Such number of processors might be usable e.g. for Monte Carlo
simulations, but quite useless for random computer use.
downloaded buggy applications, but with absolute protections.
What's wrong with that?
Well, to start, the economics of having that many mechanisms, and
the 'top-level' structure encouraging a single point of failure.
The real issue, though, is that bugs fall through the cracks
in folks' mental models of what their tools do.
There's lots of users of SPICE that don't understand the
matrix solution of simultaneous equations and Kirchhoff's rules
for setting up those equations. That implies that they
don't understand SPICE, either. The human at the top
isn't really in control, when that happens.
I don't need to understand the code inside Spice. I just need to use
it.
I don't automatically trust a Spice sim anyhow. As Mike E famously
said, the main function of Spice is to train your instincts.
I recently added a 1 ohm resistor to a Spice model, one end grounded
and the other just open. It decreased sim time by a factor of
thousands. Explain that for us please.
You probably had something dodgy in your circuit, like a node
without DC path, a loop with zero resistance, or a lossless
resonator.
Jeroen Belleman
Why did the 1 ohm resistor fix that?
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2117:b0:77a:29f:97e8 with SMTP id l23-20020a05620a211700b0077a029f97e8mr227042qkl.5.1700206086331;
Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:28:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1ca3:b0:690:3ac3:f3f1 with SMTP id
y35-20020a056a001ca300b006903ac3f3f1mr5586954pfw.1.1700206086033; Thu, 16 Nov
2023 23:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 23:28:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <l2gdli1213tmjnsur3ivooc8a8s0lt2uf6@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me>
<cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
<48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
<eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <62ea37b3-ffd9-fc6b-de7b-894fef274021@electrooptical.net>
<r35dli1au3siiieroone1clgvu303t85lf@4ax.com> <c94a297c-4087-d545-4545-c9596b887909@electrooptical.net>
<l2gdli1213tmjnsur3ivooc8a8s0lt2uf6@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bf50b9ef-980a-4a85-b89e-d8e56bfde647n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:28:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2425
Path: not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:44:02 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <uj7cl9$2oe8i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me>
<uj340o$1rrht$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:44:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="03c154cfba1b1827684863b3558a2087";
logging-data="2898194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//dd4ccM+gwARoGoWpejo7LWpHlJBIbp8oD8fmv61GwQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lFrY0ApR5Fd0NgRNHOE7bhy6NsM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <uj340o$1rrht$1@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 3932
Path: not-for-mailrk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com> <36nclil8bnf2bbdkg1damb71r86v4fh95h@4ax.com> <uj654o$2es19$1@dont-email.me> <
From: Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 06:30:35 GMT
Message-ID: <uj71ac$1k8pm$1@solani.org>
References: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 06:30:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="1712950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L1E6srtBGQvgV2k057tjf/2KmRk=
X-Newsreader-location: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (c) 'LIGHTSPEED' off line news reader for the Linux platform
NewsFleX homepage: http://www.panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/ and ftp download ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/news/readers/
X-User-ID: eJwFwQEBACAIA7BKov5AHEHfP4IbFo3tm+CGIGf0rI6Oyu3MB0IF8iHsvrCTrBRzuSYdKYzKM+Ksay59SC8VQQ==
X-Received-Bytes: 5441
Path: not-for-mailrk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <62ea37b3-ffd9-fc6b-de7b-894fef274021@electrooptical.net> <r35dli1au3siiieroone1clgvu303t85lf@4ax.com> <c94a297c-4087-d545-4545-c9596b887909@electrooptical.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 01:37:32 +0000
From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:37:04 -0800
Organization: Highland Tech
Reply-To: xx@yy.com
Message-ID: <l2gdli1213tmjnsur3ivooc8a8s0lt2uf6@4ax.com>
References: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 163
X-Trace: sv3-I0TQ1N7FpUQ0/CMIYnoT17/CO28tPNSJSXgPeWZUMCVzG3TT252JiXwQEPsd25FhHyXHhKpaPLNDg6k!6czcEkWQLef8roAic8bmuHW5IE6yl7tpkU6c9TJCY9HjzxAmM5+vzavm+HRdKHHTKZ+0nf7sapq3!mDxIoQ==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Received-Bytes: 7829
Path: not-for-mailrk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com> <eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com> <6bfde742-69df-4eee-ad3e-6d047c573d2en@googlegroups.com> <36nclil8bnf2bbdkg1damb71r86v4fh95h@4ax.com> <uj654o$2es19$1@dont-email.me> <
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:31:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <uj7bts$2ob98$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com> <b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com> <48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com> <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:31:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e00f15488cb83c14e2584689882af488"; logging-data="2895144"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+n5l/23bk3AZJj9rQZxJzf"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kUpRHjqx7batOvstxAxi/FvFHfI=
In-Reply-To: <1padli5n5v4o67l9lif9hicc0djl7jsd81@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 5316
Path: not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 01:37:26 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <uj78of$2npbr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com>
<uitopl$r9m7$1@dont-email.me> <cu47li9f5gri305iafvffnmao9aurkvi2m@4ax.com>
<b5d488fb-4cae-41de-a003-0f823a6fd2b2n@googlegroups.com>
<48eali9c9lp841616piphv6jc2tp16rpuj@4ax.com>
<rk2cli5krra78uhajm05oh1eorag933tq5@4ax.com>
<eafcli95b5qcateh2h07f35rg1fqriqoi0@4ax.com>
<62ea37b3-ffd9-fc6b-de7b-894fef274021@electrooptical.net>
<r35dli1au3siiieroone1clgvu303t85lf@4ax.com>
<c94a297c-4087-d545-4545-c9596b887909@electrooptical.net>
<l2gdli1213tmjnsur3ivooc8a8s0lt2uf6@4ax.com>
<bf50b9ef-980a-4a85-b89e-d8e56bfde647n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:37:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="690610e700b37fc5a88a4d38af846c2f";
logging-data="2876795"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jzKpnNtt9rIebiNuoT7xT"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cwLBYmTHbgEnK4kD31UZ3VY7wUM=
In-Reply-To: <bf50b9ef-980a-4a85-b89e-d8e56bfde647n@googlegroups.com> Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 2793
On 15/11/2023 18:52, Don Y wrote:
On 11/15/2023 5:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
I have finally had to install Ubuntu myself to gain access to exotic
software that is only available on Unix (and porting it to Windows would be >>> incredibly tedious and error prone which is why no-one ever has).
Why have you (presumably) avoided it? Most Eunices install a lot easier
(and quicker!) than Windows. The only tough part is if you want to offer >> specific network services on a host (name, file transfer, SMB, packet
filtering, etc.). There, the UIs tend to be pretty archaic (read:
non-GUI) and often cryptic. Best not tackled by newbies.
It was the cryptic archaic UI's and having already invested quite some effort in OS/2 PM development skills which paid rather well.
They had a segmented
architecture where it was very hard (but not quite impossible) for a process to
access or write to memory outside its allocated zones.
Unfortunately the flat memory model and pointer to a God alone knows what windows object won out in the end and we all now pay the price. Segmented memory access isn't pretty but it puts hard bounds on what damage a rogue process can actually do to a working machine.
I'm quite impressed with it so far and Maxima is much more stable on the >>> Unix platform which is an unexpected bonus for me (likewise I suspect for >>> Latex too). I may yet make the change to becoming a Unix advocate.
In future there are some things that I will now do under Unix because it >>> works better there than on Windows rather than because there is no
equivalent on Windows (which is what motivated me to jump ship).
My approach has sort of been the opposite: using UN*X for the
important things and Windows for those things that are more
"window dressing" (documentation, CAD/EDA, multimedia, etc.).
I've not used a Windows-based toolchain for ages (since VC1.0!)
Fundamentally it comes down to a strategy of only using unfamiliar esoteric stuff for solving problems that won't yield any other way.
I'm presently trying to get to grips with ARM's Remez approximation code in Julia and Sollya's alternative way of doing things. Maxima and Excel don't even
agree on which way the function I am modelling diverges from reality! (and they
are each given the same precision coefficients)
I'm slightly more inclined to trust Maxima...
If anyone here has experience wrestling with either of these approximation tools I would be interested in comparing notes...
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:17:04 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 22:01, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:16:42 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 16:09, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
I can swallow that as I use it for reading pdf-s and browsing,
plus the occasional ltspice.
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and
occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Win10 is going officially unsupported sometime soon in 2025. I expect it >>>> will get a reprieve or there will be a global malware catastrophe.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-windows-10-is-a-security-disaster-waiting-to-happen/
Win11 main advantage for me is that it understands performance cores on >>>> the more recent Intel CPUs. That is a kludge in Win10.
The last truly dreadful edition of windows was Win8.
Think Picasso on a bad acid trip and you will not be too far off.
I miss Win7, but most of the machines have died.
Win7 will run on modern CPUs although I wouldn't recommend it unless you >>either have a damn good impenetrable firewall (plenty of ancient big >>scientific instruments still work that way 20 year design life -
although clever virtualisation of antique hardware environments are
getting around that).
You can extract the original license key from old kit with suitable
tools - although the license server may now have disappeared so you
cannot register new hardware to run Win7. It means that certain >>motherboards have premium prices in the second hand market.
You can make Win11 look enough like WIn7 to be acceptable.
Win11 got terrible user reviews, but update 23H2 fixed a lot of
stupidities. It's almost tolerable, after a lot of tweaks.
It runs Firefox, LT Spice, PADS, VLC, Crimson, Agent, Irfanview, and a
bunch of my old compiled PowerBasic programs. And seems reliable so
far.
None of those are particularly taxing. The big change was when 32bit
code (and before that 16bit) became unsupported.
That broke a lot of major players installers like Adobe Photoshop and >>others.
You just like to whinge and whine about Intel and Microsoft.
You just like to insult people.
Design something. You'll feel better.
On 15/11/2023 18:54, Don Y wrote:
On 11/15/2023 11:16 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
The only gotcha I can see is that every version requires more ram and
occupies more disk space but both are cheap and fast today.
Save for a generation of machines with 8GB *hardware* memory limits...
It was ever thus. Time was when each new OS required almost all of the >hardware currently in use to be replaced.
OTOH, I can run a *BSD box with *megabytes* of RAM if I am willing
to live witht he thrashing (which, unlike windows machines,
won't take the machine to its knees)
I can recall a time back when big iron had a whopping (for the time) 4MB
of main memory and when you you had to get a special ticket to allow
your jobs to use more than 1MB at a time. Lisp wouldn't run in less.
Path: not-for-mailuj344f$1rrht$2@dont-email.me> <uj4t0d$280cn$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:38:27 +0000
From: john larkin <jl@650pot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:38:27 -0800
Message-ID: <tkcfli9p932sfp9f5d7kqu4mpdmnud52fb@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me> <r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj063l$19nj8$1@dont-email.me> <uj31uf$1rfa0$1@dont-email.me> <
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
X-Trace: sv3-8pCvVkcAcsM77zmfutcCHxNidtz/g+f9yVuh8V9PJZuXf0cvlXXlSfNYTgYomHBOmm/ScbiNwjmgRX5!TsWblykBbkNxGZj4BpnwztMIDe1d2tI6zczSDjs0doVrXJgGA2ZsE+2pjw0++YSpB/oRJmELu3yu!jQmufg==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Received-Bytes: 2690
Path: not-for-mailuj7cl9$2oe8i$1@dont-email.me>
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 11:13:27 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <uj8agh$2tcjv$2@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me> <r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me> <uj340o$1rrht$1@dont-email.me> <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:13:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="690610e700b37fc5a88a4d38af846c2f"; logging-data="3060351"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190aAWZkeWgYUz1obdNSZzh"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AMa0UfczxaWPj4AdKMRyBx4U2o8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uj7cl9$2oe8i$1@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 8818
It was the cryptic archaic UI's and having already invested quite some
effort in OS/2 PM development skills which paid rather well. They had a >segmented architecture where it was very hard (but not quite impossible)
for a process to access or write to memory outside its allocated zones.
Unfortunately the flat memory model and pointer to a God alone knows
what windows object won out in the end and we all now pay the price. >Segmented memory access isn't pretty but it puts hard bounds on what
damage a rogue process can actually do to a working machine.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:44:02 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
It was the cryptic archaic UI's and having already invested quite some
effort in OS/2 PM development skills which paid rather well. They had a
segmented architecture where it was very hard (but not quite impossible)
for a process to access or write to memory outside its allocated zones.
Apparently it had non-overlapping segments. IIRC the segment registers
also had an exe/moexe bit.Thus it would be quite hard to modify the
code segment accidentally.
With 386 Intel made a mistake by first evaluated the segment address,
then truncate it to 32 bits before applying paging. Thus the virtual
address space was limited to 4 GB. A better solution would have been
skipping the truncation to 32 bits and allow 4 GB access for each
segment.
Things get worse by some OSes which loaded 0 to all segment registers,
thus all segments overlapped, so writing into the code segment is
easy. No help setting the execute bit in the code segment register and denying in other segments.
Unfortunately the flat memory model and pointer to a God alone knows
what windows object won out in the end and we all now pay the price.
Segmented memory access isn't pretty but it puts hard bounds on what
damage a rogue process can actually do to a working machine.
I can understand the segmented system problems with 16 bit 8086 code,
but in 32 bit 386 mode it would have less harmful.
It is sad that the segmented access is nearly gone in 64 bitters. A
few more segment registers and most addresses could be generated with
2 or 4 byte offsets relative to the segment register, instead of full
8 byte address references.
Path: not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did
nothing, lawsuit claims
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:06:38 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <uj92n8$317b8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com>
<ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me>
<r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me>
<uj340o$1rrht$1@dont-email.me> <uj7cl9$2oe8i$1@dont-email.me>
<usmfli9erlm2tdn2q220kk62l7uergukfu@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2023 01:06:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="58b0f9a6cc277452fdb4b751f75782c6";
logging-data="3186024"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Y3RCCUKflMtj0U7Uw3SDZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V0gQK0YYUV+sQwftHktnGvaqCT8=
In-Reply-To: <usmfli9erlm2tdn2q220kk62l7uergukfu@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 7045
Path: not-for-mailuj7cl9$2oe8i$1@dont-email.me>
From: upsidedown@downunder.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Downfall fallout: Intel knew AVX chips were insecure and did nothing, lawsuit claims
Message-ID: <usmfli9erlm2tdn2q220kk62l7uergukfu@4ax.com>
References: <252e18ff-414a-4d18-b984-796f8311ad8dn@googlegroups.com> <ebn4lidvt7bqf9al4dq2nooo4iqpv2ifgm@4ax.com> <uitqvi$rjpc$1@dont-email.me> <r257lipb348csh8otghajpb8v2ds1707lj@4ax.com> <uj2d6m$1o35u$1@dont-email.me> <uj340o$1rrht$1@dont-email.me> <
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Bytes: 2565
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 23:59:28 +0200
X-Received-Bytes: 2770
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 95:34:46 |
| Calls: | 6,719 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,252 |
| Messages: | 5,359,374 |
| Posted today: | 1 |