Intel Publishes Microcode Security Patches With No Benchmarks Or Profiling Allowed (theregister.co.uk) 373
Long-time Slashdot reader Bruce Perens writes: The Register reports that Debian is rejecting a new Intel microcode update because of a new license term prohibiting the use of the CPU for benchmarks and profiling.
There is a new license term applied to the new microcode: "You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results." UPDATE:: Intel has reworked the license to no longer prohibit benchmarking. Imad Sousou, corporate VP and general manager of Intel Open Source Technology Center, tweeted on Thursday: "We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version here. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community."
The security fixes are known to significantly slow down Intel processors, which won't just disappoint customers and reduce the public regard of Intel, it will probably lead to lawsuits (if it hasn't already). Suddenly having processors that are perhaps 5% to 10% slower, if they are to be secure, is a significant damage to many companies that run server farms or provide cloud services. I'm not blaming Intel for this, I don't know if Intel could have foreseen the problem. Since some similar exploits have been discovered for AMD and ARM CPUs, the answer could be "no." But certainly customers are upset.
There is a new license term applied to the new microcode: "You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results." UPDATE:: Intel has reworked the license to no longer prohibit benchmarking. Imad Sousou, corporate VP and general manager of Intel Open Source Technology Center, tweeted on Thursday: "We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version here. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community."
Another issue is whether the customer should install the fix at all. Many computer users don't allow outside or unprivileged users to run on their CPUs the way a cloud or hosting company does. For them, these side-channel and timing attacks are mostly irrelevant, and the slowdown incurred by installing the fix is unnecessary.
So, lots of people are interested in the speed penalty incurred in the microcode fixes, and Intel has now attempted to gag anyone who would collect information for reporting about those penalties, through a restriction in their license. Bad move. The correct way to handle security problems is to own up to the damage, publish mitigations, and make it possible for your customers to get along. Hiding how they are damaged is unacceptable. Silencing free speech by those who would merely publish benchmarks? Bad business. Customers can't trust your components when you do that.
You'll never get a first post (Score:5, Funny)
with these security patches installed, m'ladies
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those that have security concerns are willing to take performance penalties, those that want performance usually don't worry too much about the security issues since the performance hunters are probably just running a single application anyway.
What might be interesting is to be able to boot the computer in different modes - performance or security mode. The Turbo button revival!
Re: (Score:3)
Those that have security concerns are willing to take performance penalties, those that want performance usually don't worry too much about the security issues since the performance hunters are probably just running a single application anyway.
What might be interesting is to be able to boot the computer in different modes - performance or security mode. The Turbo button revival!
I love the idea! Although it would probably show the 5-10% slowdown is a real myth. I have a laptop that overall seems to have slowed down by about half.
Now that's not "benchmarked", but apparent performance.
Intel. Just say no (Score:5, Insightful)
Making a bad situation, worse.
Intel is not managed well, in my opinion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel says this: Intel's Brian Krzanich is forced out as CEO after 'consensual relationship' with employee [cnbc.com]. Another story: New details emerge on the office affair that led to Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's surprising resignation on Thursday [businessinsider.com].
Do you believe this quote? "The office affair which sparked Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's surprise resignation on Thursday started a decade ago and ended before he became CEO in 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported."
I'm guessing that Intel is trying to hide the real reasons that CEO Brian Krzanich is no longer CEO: 1) The Sceptre and Meltdown vulnerabilities in nearly all Intel CPUs, problems that began with former CEO Paul S. Otellini. 2) He used inside information to profit: Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock [businessinsider.com].
The new Intel CEO is Robert Swan. He joined Intel in September 2016 [linkedin.com] as CFO.
One of the most self-destructive acts is to appear to lie. Then everything else is examined as also possibly a lie.
What is happening at Intel? BAD management? (Score:4, Interesting)
Judging from personal conversations with Intel employees and comments on web sites, Intel is badly managed:
Quote from thelayoff.com [thelayoff.com], Nov. 23, 2017:
"As a person who worked there several times as contract employee, which makes up most of the workforce. I have seen this happen many times, where older and higher paid blue badges get shown the door, and sometimes escorted out like criminals. This has created a paranoid environment among those who are left, so everyone starts back stabbing each other because they don't want to be the next one to be booted. And creates animosity to the contract workers who are treated like crap. So any workplace cohesion gets thrown out the window, because everyone is circling their prospective wagons."
Re: (Score:3)
I agree but lets be really honest about something else while we are on that subject. Those skeletons are left to lay in their closets unless unless you extol the wrong politics or tick off the wrong person. The CoC / #meToo crowd has a some legitimately aggrieved folks in it who deserve justice but to pretend that the majority of people banding those terms about on twitter are not using as either a person or political weapon for entirely selfish motives is nonsense.
Re:Intel. Just say no (Score:5, Informative)
>_ Inasmuch as I agree with "Just say no", it's not so simple.
See, I work for the government. We have to keep transparency in procurement. That is not an option; the public is our "boss". Hiding things is unacceptable.
Benchmarks are a necessary part of choosing a product.
And we must "publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results", so that the procurement process is documented to be led impartially.
I have the law and a contract to choose which I will abide by.
Either I will violate the contract later or exclude Intel from bidding a priori.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this Bruce Perens guy. (Score:5, Funny)
And the bigger question why is he not posting spam and dups like the rest of slashdot editors?
Re:Who is this Bruce Perens guy. (Score:5, Informative)
Because they've never actually given me inside access to Slashdot. It's their playground. One or two editors look for things I've written, mostly the folks who work on the weekend.
I screw up as much as anyone else.
Re:Who is this Bruce Perens guy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who is this Bruce Perens guy. (Score:5, Funny)
You are allowed the occasional error.
Not on Slashdot your not.
Me too, lol. (Score:2)
n/t.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't, he's probably just better at not committing his stupidity to the public record. We all fuck up.
Quick fix: (Score:5, Insightful)
Only buy AMD.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only buy POWER, BLOB free
Re: (Score:3)
Alternative fix: Someone in a country with a) a non-broken legal system or b) a legal system so broken that Intel can forget about enforcing its "license": Go collect and post the most comprehensive benchmark data you can possibly get.
Re:Quick fix: (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no it doesn't. Of the 11 Spectre Variants AMD has only been vulnerable to about 3. And two of those variants were the ones that affected every out of order processor ever made.
Re: (Score:3)
The main issue is Meltdown, which is Intel-only.
Re:Quick fix: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quick fix: (Score:5, Informative)
Is it? Everything I've read lately is the ISA is free, but there are plenty of blobs for the other components that make an actual processor. It has the potential to be a truly free processor, but the early players don't have the resources for that.
I think POWER9 implementations are, right now, the closest. Raptor Computing Systems [raptorcs.com] is shipping what looks to be real nice, but real EXPENSIVE, stuff. There may also be some OpenSPARC stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to evaluate one of those Talos II workstations, just to see what kind of workload could make it top out.
4K special effects rendering? VMs by the dozen?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only full open, but said to be more power efficient than ARM. [chicagotribune.com] Rather interesting, even if the truth is more nuanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. [venturebeat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I read an interesting article on that a couple of decades ago where they were discussing how it ignited some growth in machine code translation technology that later evolved into some of the first serious run-time machine code translators.
It seems that they just shipped it with faults and researchers would test it, characterize the faults in the chip, and cross translate all of the machine code to eliminate the use of opcodes that had faults in the hardware in favor of equivalent workarounds.
An interesting
we saw this coming long ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You saw this coming but have no idea of the history behind microcode patches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The microcode feature is there to help you, not enslave you. Silicon is forever. Patching it on your desktop after the fact is a god-send.
Learn some history before you claim to have predicted the future.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You saw this coming but have no idea of the history behind microcode patches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The microcode feature is there to help you, not enslave you. Silicon is forever. Patching it on your desktop after the fact is a god-send.
Learn some history before you claim to have predicted the future.
With respect; the fight to keep alternative operating systems on PCs and servers is a long and storied history. Through the "hardware partner" cartel, win modems and finally the palladium initiatives culminating in locked bios that required key codes to load an OS. Linux has weathered the lockout exclusion storms that favor Microsoft and to a lesser extent Apple.
The fact that Linux based servers still run huge portions of the servers that power the net is still a problem for Intel, in as much as Linux serv
I think I've got the message... (Score:5, Insightful)
So Intel, as a condition of using your patch to fix the broken shit you sold us, you don't want us to use the patch to empirically determine just how broken your shit was, or else you'll sue us?
I've got the message loud and clear: you're crooked dirtbags.
I don't think I'll be sending any money your way in future.
That's not the message I took away (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: I think I've got the message... (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD: "We'll take 'em!"
Intel just made my Streisand effect alarm break. They've screwed up the PR for this since it started. Bad updates, downplaying the severity of the issue, FUD, and now a gag order. You'd think they could handle this better, but I guess not. Rather, I'd say they are scared shitless right now. They've got another FDIV problem on their hands, nothing that will fix it without pain, and no true solution coming out the pipe for another year. Meanwhile their competition is out classing them in everything. Well almost everything, colossal PR nightmares, and bad security design isn't on their competition's roadmap. Reason to be scared indeed. I was already buying AMD exclusively over the AMT crap, but anyone buying Intel at this point is a complete idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no regrets about going with AMD for all my recent builds. As lackluster as Bulldozer was, Ryzen (even my relatively pedestrian 1700) has been wonderful - and I'd even take Bulldozer over Meltdown, FUD, and gag orders any day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i want to see the best intel vs amd cpu benchmarks fro the last 10 years to be rerun and for us to see how the difference between intel's best and amd's best looks now with all the patches and microcode updates installed. like x4-965 vs intel equivalent. stuff like this.
i'm leaning towards the 'intel processors routinely being 20% faster than amd cpu's at the same speed" to be more even, or possibly amd having the performance crown for all these years, it's just intel cheated so much it made their cpus look
Re:I think I've got the message... (Score:5, Insightful)
you're crooked dirtbags
From the very start of this saga when Intel jumped the gun on the press release to make sure that it combined their main problem with another problem they shared with AMD in order to make it appear as though they were equally affected, Intel has been playing dirty - bordering on criminal - pool.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point I'm hoping the soon-to-be-announced low-cost MacBook will use Apple's own ARM CPU/GPU.
Re: I think I've got the message... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The slashdot editor munged the link to the license text. It's here [ubuntu.com].
The license agreement says that they cannot publish benchmarks, as in those who redistribute the microcode cannot publish benchmarks. It does not (and could not) restrict anyone using the microcode update to publish benchmarks. Intel has been asking all of the companies involved in this process for benchmarks since the beginning. Every single microcode update. I'm not saying Intel is doing the right thing here at all, but it's not as bad as it seems. My guess is that the reason for this change is that t
It's extremely slow now! (Score:3)
The reason they did this is because it slows performance to what I would call a painful crawl. I would post the benchmarks to quantify and prove it but it's not allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they did this is because it slows performance to what I would call a painful crawl. I would post the benchmarks to quantify and prove it but it's not allowed.
Painful crawl is slightly faster than a standstill, and slightly slower than molasses slow. So you did benchmark it and violated the agreement.
Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my ass (Score:3)
"This time for sure!"
I've had an AMD-64 microcode patch sitting in my update manager for a week or so. I think I'll wait a little longer to apply it,
I don't like being the first wave of test monkeys.
Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
Well kudos to Debian. I am very disappointed in seeing Red Hat, SUSE in saying the licence is fine.
Just goes to show you how close to Windows the big commercial Linux Distro are moving.
Re: (Score:3)
You are assuming they read the click-through agreement.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I've caught Red Hat in a number of legal mistakes where I've had to wake up one of their lawyers to the issue, because the engineer never consulted one. This might be that sort of thing, or whoever read the text didn't consider the implications. The microcode runs for every instruction, and as far as I can tell the prohibition applies to all use of the CPU. Don't ever provide or publish benchmarks, even for your own software, using this CPU to collect them.
The lawyer who wrote the license obviously didn't walk through what the CPU actually does, and that the implication of the language would thus be larger than expected.
Re: (Score:3)
Would the licence even apply to the end user? Will a licence agreement pop up on screen asking the user to agree to Intel's terms when they install a Red Hat OS or update one?
Because it seems likely that the end user will never even hear about the patch, and innocently go run some benchmarks when they find their system has slowed to a crawl.
Will be interesting to see how Microsoft handles it too. Someone is living in a fantasy world if they think people are going to stop benchmarking and posting the results
What I hope will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong link (Score:5, Informative)
Someone at Intel might want to read about... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if I do publish the benchmarks? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You can use the CPU, bitch, but only the way WE tell you to use it". No doubt that's the fantasy Intel execs masturbate to every night before bed.
we can file an copyright claim / dmca takedown (Score:3)
we can file an copyright claim / dmca take down or even an press theft changes some of our cpus are over $1K-5K each so that is grand larceny.
Now an real lawyer can kill that BS but some small guys may just back down vs $$$ to defending them form the big boys at intel.
Links to benchmarks? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone got a link to some benchmarks?
Re:Links to benchmarks? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a link, I just hope Intel doesn't commandeer my#``{{#'+`$NO CARRIER
How long before we see what this code does? (Score:2)
Re:How long before we see what this code does? (Score:4, Interesting)
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell"
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a total fracking waste of time.
Yes, I'm afraid it's come to this.
I wish I had mod points. (Score:3)
This really fits with the Manifort/Cohen news, but it's on point, nonetheless.
I wonder why the new /. owners haven't allowed a story on that? :)
Is this enforceable outside the US? (Score:2)
Make your next CPU (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Techspot just published some very extensive benchmarks ( https://www.techspot.com/review/1683-linux-vs-windows-threadripper-vs-core-i9/ ) that make AMD's Threadripper 2990WX look significantly faster than Intel's i9-7980XE in a lot of the particular tests. Interestingly they did most (all?) of the tests with Linux and Windows 10 on both CPU's and Linux also seemed to do better to various degrees (a little to a lot).
I suppose we could assume this patch will increase the AMD performance margin, depending on
nope (Score:4, Informative)
"Many computer users don't allow outside or unprivileged users to run on their CPUs"
Your browser is running some outside unprivileged JavaScript for almost every page you visit. One of the exploits was specifically described for JavaScript running in a browser.
You don't even need to be able to execute code. Even code that would traditionally be considered harmless could potentially be used for side channel attacks if you e.g. control the input data. That invoice your ISP sent you as a PDF could potentially use a harmless piece of code inside Adobe Reader to do something harmful.
The fact that it has not been demonstrated yet does not mean it can't be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your browser is running some outside unprivileged JavaScript for almost every page you visit.
Which would worry me if the browser ran that script long enough to build up a detailed profile of my machine, and then customised it's own malware attack to make a side channel attack at all relevant.
The reality is side channel attacks MUST be targetted at a specific system setup, or in many cases with modern OS security measures the actual specific currently running system with the hope it doesn't reboot at some point. Just because your browser executes Javascript doesn't mean anyone in their right mind wo
AMD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Judge Laughs (Score:4, Interesting)
So Intel is saying if you want to benchmark to decide if you want to join the class action, you can't provide a detailed reason that you're joining the class? Lawsuits are a matter of public record - a judge is going to laugh at that kind of restriction. How does Intel expect it's going to enforce this?
Let's see a million people tweet their slowdown measurements and then it'll be Intel Legal's move. Somebody come up with the hashtag.
and will intel force MS to trun this on in windows (Score:2)
and will intel force MS to trun this on in windows even on AMD systems?
Re: (Score:2)
How would you run Intel microcode on an AMD CPU?
Re: (Score:2)
may not that but the other non microcode Intel fixes.
Not Legal (Score:4, Insightful)
You can ignore stupid shit like this. Intel can sue for you for looking cross eyed if they wanted to. It does not mean that they will win even if you lose everything defending yourself from it.
No company can legally require a person this kind of performative obedience under any circumstance as a sold product like this. Additionally, there have already been cases where judges have rendered TOS/EULA agreements as total bullshit and unenforceable. Especially after a sale has already been completed, just look at the Sony Linux feature removal class action on the PS3 that cost them millions.
That said, it could still be a nightmare to deal with but that is the nature of SLAP lawsuits to begin with. The intention is not to win, but to financially drain you into a loss or to scare people... mainly the websites publishing benchmark data.
One wrong move by Intel and they will be facing the same kind of fucking class action lawsuit themselves. Everyone should slap so many fucking benchmarks online that intels heads spin!
Re:Not Legal (Score:4, Interesting)
No company can legally require a person this kind of performative obedience under any circumstance as a sold product like this.
Of course a company can enter into a contract with you that says you can't publish performance specs for their product. So I am going to assume that you mean to say that it's about a product they PREVIOUSLY sold you. The thing is, Intel did NOT previously sell you this microcode update.
The contract is that Intel will provide you this new microcode update, which is software, but that your license to use it will be restricted. (Specifically that you can't run this software on a computer for the purpose of benchmarking it, and that you won't publish such a benchmark.)
I don't see any legal problem with that contract.
It doesn't make Intel look good, but if you don't like the deal, then don't install the software.
Additionally, there have already been cases where judges have rendered TOS/EULA agreements as total bullshit and unenforceable.
If you cannot read the "By downloading, you agree..." license terms BEFORE downloading, then you have a shrink-wrap license problem. (By the way, shrink-wrap licenses are still upheld in some states such as Maryland and Virginia.) Even if there's a shrink-wrap issue, though, it is fairly obvious that INSTALLING the software after downloading and reading the accompanying license would constitute agreement to the terms.
Especially after a sale has already been completed, just look at the Sony Linux feature removal class action on the PS3 that cost them millions
That case was different than this. In the PS3 case, Sony removed access to their online gaming network, thereby crippling the box. Here, Intel is not removing access to anything: if you don't like the terms, then don't install the microcode update, and your computer will continue to function exactly as it did before, with all the same capabilities (and bugs) intact. Which is the point.
I expect the benchmarks will be out soon and all over the place, published in ways that make it impossible to figure out who to sue. Then, these benchmarks will be reported all over the place by people who never downloaded or installed or agreed to any of the license terms, and in fact did not perform any benchmarking themselves. Just published some results from some other shadowy people who cannot be sued.
Could be a mistake (Score:4, Informative)
The license also mentions NDA's and Pre-Release agreements
Looks like license they would include with pre-release/beta software.
7. CONFIDENTIALITY. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, exchanged
confidential information, as well as the Software are subject to the terms and
conditions of the Non-Disclosure Agreement(s) or Intel Pre-Release Loan
Agreement(s) (referred to herein collectively or individually as "NDA") entered
into by and in force between Intel and You, and in any case no less
confidentiality protection than You apply to Your information of similar
sensitivity. If You would like to have a contractor perform work on Your behalf
that requires any access to or use of Software, You must obtain a written
confidentiality agreement from the contractor which contains terms and
conditions with respect to access to or use of Software no less restrictive
than those set forth in this Agreement, excluding any distribution rights and
use for any other purpose, and You will remain fully liable to Intel for the
actions and inactions of those contractors. You may not use Intel's name in any
publications, advertisements, or other announcements without Intel's prior
written consent.
Re: (Score:2)
You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; ... (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties;
Never mind the benchmark clause, there is no way I would expect Debian, Microsoft, or anyone else to start shipping code that has those clauses in the license terms.
so run SUSE, Arch, and Red Hat and lose the right (Score:2)
so run SUSE, Arch, and Red Hat and lose the right to bench your own systems?
I don't think that yum update can show an EULA or even an YUM update -y && reboot can stop and force you to read it.
Whoops (Score:5, Funny)
Whoops, this is basically an ad for Ryzen.
Is Microsoft Bound by the Same Terms? (Score:2)
How can Microsoft deploy this microcode to customers without banning benchmarking under Windows? Are they just betting Intel isn't going to sue them?
Simple - Can't run == FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
* FAIL means that the chip was unable to complete the benchmark due to faulty engineering or legal restrictions.
Phoronix (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Phoronix seems to have disregarded that part and published some benchmarks anyway. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.... [phoronix.com]
Read the license. It does not restrict the publication of benchmarks. It restricts the OS vendors from publishing benchmarks directly. Not cool on Intel's part. But no where does the license prevent anyone from running benchmarks. That would be impossible to control and completely impossible to enforce.
It's called a DeWitt clause (Score:3)
Re:Lies? (Score:5, Interesting)
"(v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results. "
However, there is also a clause that says if you download the tgz you accept the license automatically. So, the act of downloading to read thatlicense means you have agreed will not publish benchmarks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty sure that the shrink-wrap license issue was already tested in court and lost--completely unenforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot agree to a license until you have had an opportunity to read it.
WELL Established these days.
However, they can stipulate that you cannot use the item until you agree, so long as they can show that the license was reasonably presented to you.
Intel trying top prosecute anyone on this however would be... interesting PR.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see a court case. Wouldn't this be thrown out as an obvious violation of free speech? Sure intel could not hire someone who benchmarks their stuff, or fire someone who benchmarks it and happens to work at intel, but I'd think that is it.
"Free speech" in the United States typically means rights against federal government regulation described in the 1st amendment to the US constitution. There isn't a general prohibition against a contract requiring someone not to talk about something - non-disclosure agreements specifically limit an individuals ability to speak about certain matters. IANAL; I have no idea how likely it is that a prohibition on publishing benchmarks contained in a firmware license for firmware necessary to patch security vu
Re: (Score:2)
How well do you suppose a book publisher will get with a clause stating that nobody shall release a review of a particular book without that review first being approved by the publisher?
Re:Lies? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
For the tealdeer crowd, the relevant portion starts on line 71.
Re:Car analogy time (Score:4, Interesting)
well When you started your car you said yes to eul (Score:2)
well When you started your car you said yes to the new eula. Don't like it you can trade your car in (no full refund)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't make it enforceable.
And what will the penalty be? Pay them back the price of the patch?
The interesting part would be if someone installed the patch, ran the benchmarks, published the results and then Intel sued them for an imputed loss of sales.
Re: (Score:2)
And why wouldn't they be entitled to one just as a diesel VW customer would be.
Intel can say you are not our customer call your d (Score:2)
Intel can say you are not our customer call your dealer / distributor for an refund.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel bad that I bought a new computer this spring with an Intel processor. I can't afford to just get a new computer, or I would. But I'm stuck with this one for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if MS went all in supporting/facilitating Wine. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had contingency plans...
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
The intel-microcode packages for Debian are in the non-free repository. I'll make a point not to take legal advice from you.
Guns don't kill people; holes kill people (Score:2)
Guns don't kill people; flesh displacement kills people.
Guns don't kill people; going into shock kills people.
Guns don't kill people; organ failure kills people.
Guns don't kill people; bleeding out kills people.
is just for places like Puget Systems / LinusTechT (Score:2)
is just for places like Puget Systems / LinusTechTips / etc that if you bench it then you get cut off them from free parts / Engineering Samples? But they some how copied the that EULA into the update one?