Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

perens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 499 posts

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#21

Post by robocat »

> (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties

i.e. you cannot allow anyone else to use your CPU?

I get that the intent is probably about distribution, but the software runs on the CPU so is being used by whoever is using the CPU.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#22

Post by duxup »

Nition wrote: post #9

They better be wary of the Streisand Effect here. Banning benchmarking just makes it seem like the performance hit is going to be serious, which makes everyone even more curious.

I didn't know anything about this... now I'm really curious what the benchmarks are.

Now that it is news they're pretty much begging for someone to do the benchmarks.

This reminds me of the oracle license that was so broad it prevented users from talking to other users about their experience with the product... any experience.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#23

Post by FiloSottile »

Forget benchmarks, how is (iii) (“You will not [...] use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties”) compatible with shared hosting and rented virtual machines, where the provider has to apply the microcode for the benefit of the guests?

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#24

Post by wtallis »

muppetman wrote: post #3
johnklos wrote: post #2

I'm really curious how Intel could even imagine this is enforceable. For instance, if I have a server with shell access for many users, am I supposed to forbid my users from publishing benchmarks? If they do, am I liable since I "agreed" to the license? Or are they, even though they never "agreed" to the license? It just doesn't make sense.

Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.

It wouldn't work. Even online media gets pretty strong first amendment protections that mean Intel wouldn't have a complete open and shut case, and we tech journalists are smart enough to be able to get the same microcode updates through other channels that don't have the same strings attached. If it's meant to deter anybody, it's the big corporate customers and competitors.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#25

Post by Fzzr »

muppetman wrote: post #3
johnklos wrote: post #2

I'm really curious how Intel could even imagine this is enforceable. For instance, if I have a server with shell access for many users, am I supposed to forbid my users from publishing benchmarks? If they do, am I liable since I "agreed" to the license? Or are they, even though they never "agreed" to the license? It just doesn't make sense.

Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.

The license can't restrict third parties from sharing benchmarks, which is why it puts the onus on the user not to allow third parties to share them. If some news site was to publish benchmarks without disclosing the source, Intel would first have to take them to court to force them to disclose who provided said benchmarks. That's as far as I can see it directly impacting sites that don't run their own benchmarks. That said, the sites that do run their own benchmarks would be on the hook. Sadly, even if this is unenforceable, the potential legal battle to have it declared so would be scary enough to quash some criticism.

This really makes me doubt if I should buy Intel products in the future (to the extent that I have a choice). If I can't get performance information because Intel has something to hide, I'll have to look elsewhere. Really, this is sufficiently distasteful behavior to make me avoid Intel even if the products work just fine.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#26

Post by sorokod »

bochoh wrote: post #5

It would seem that paired with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17820248 that Intel is reeling back like a wounded animal. I'm intrigued as to what comes next - real innovation or dirty tactics to stay on top?

Why not both?!

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#27

Post by wtallis »

eight_ender wrote: post #12

Has Intel just outlawed any review website (gaming, enthusiast, etc) from ever posting benchmarks of their CPUs again? I feel like they didn't think this through.

If we tech journalists were actually seriously concerned that Intel would be dumb enough to try to enforce those provisions against us, then we'd just ask the motherboard vendors for updated pre-release firmware that incorporates the new microcode but doesn't come with Intel's license agreement attached. We often go that route anyways because it's easier to update the motherboard than to ensure that every OS you're testing against (especially Windows) has loaded the newer microcode.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#28

Post by TomMckenny »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #4
muppetman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.

This is censorship, plain and simple. They cannot command everyone to abridge their speech, even if their license terms say so. It is unenforceable and illegal.

Given that the dissenting justice for "TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board" is now on the supreme court, I'm thinking contracts will indeed supersede protections (unless every possible permutation is explicitly enumerated in legislation as if forever battling the "literal genie").

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#29

Post by fuzzy2 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7
johnklos wrote: post #2

I'm really curious how Intel could even imagine this is enforceable. For instance, if I have a server with shell access for many users, am I supposed to forbid my users from publishing benchmarks? If they do, am I liable since I "agreed" to the license? Or are they, even though they never "agreed" to the license? It just doesn't make sense.

Or you buy a CPU that was previously patched, even by Intel themselves.

The CPU isn't patched, not permanently. This update must be loaded after every processor reset.
Post reply on HN