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

Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#11

Post by mikeash »

eahman08 wrote: post #4
dmitrygr wrote: post #2

No explanations, no apologies, just this: We are updating the license now to address this and will have a new version available soon. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback.

Would it change anything if they said "we are sorry"?

A proper apology is not just “sorry,” but includes an acknowledgment of what they did wrong and that they’ll avoid doing the same thing again. Showing that they realize the nature of the problem and will at least pretend to not do it again would be good.

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#13

Post by djsumdog »

cesarb wrote: post #10
kev009 wrote: post #3

How do you gaffe this bad? How is someone that incompetent in the decision making loop? Some random engineer creating the ucode or uploading it to the web doesn't come up with this kind of idea to change license language. These are edicts from management. I'd love for that conversation to leak in full.

I saw a tweet somewhere (IIRC in the anandtech sidebar, unfortunately I'm not finding it right now) where the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode which leaked into the final version.

That makes much more sense. If that's what happened, Intel should just come out and say it. Own your mistakes, or at least adopt this lie if it wasn't a mistake, simply because it's plausible and will help them save face from a PR perspective. (The Nobel Lie as it would be).

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#15

Post by geezerjay »

cesarb wrote: post #10
kev009 wrote: post #3

How do you gaffe this bad? How is someone that incompetent in the decision making loop? Some random engineer creating the ucode or uploading it to the web doesn't come up with this kind of idea to change license language. These are edicts from management. I'd love for that conversation to leak in full.

I saw a tweet somewhere (IIRC in the anandtech sidebar, unfortunately I'm not finding it right now) where the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode which leaked into the final version.

> the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode

I don't see how this changes anything at all.

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#17

Post by Aloha »

pwg wrote: post #8
kev009 wrote: post #3

How do you gaffe this bad? How is someone that incompetent in the decision making loop? Some random engineer creating the ucode or uploading it to the web doesn't come up with this kind of idea to change license language. These are edicts from management. I'd love for that conversation to leak in full.

That language is likely derived from a path similar to this: "Marketing department" -- We are sick of seeing the world complain that our patches to these problems reduce performance by X percent. Hey "Legal Dept", can anything be done about that? "Legal Dept" -- We will see what we can do... Result, a new clause appears in the license file that says "no bench-marking". With no one in the path ever having heard of the…

I suspect its something more banal.

I believe intel does distribute test/beta microcode to certain partners, and likely security researchers, this kind of statement is something you would put in a beta version, I wonder if someone simply used the wrong license file when they deployed this to the website.

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#18

Post by kikoreis »

geezerjay wrote: post #15
cesarb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a tweet somewhere (IIRC in the anandtech sidebar, unfortunately I'm not finding it right now) where the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode which leaked into the final version.

> the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode I don't see how this changes anything at all.

If it's a limited access beta version, restricting redistribution and benchmark publishing makes a lot more sense.

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#19

Post by SolarNet »

geezerjay wrote: post #15
cesarb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a tweet somewhere (IIRC in the anandtech sidebar, unfortunately I'm not finding it right now) where the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode which leaked into the final version.

> the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode I don't see how this changes anything at all.

If they had given it to specific companies before it was finished the benchmarks would not represent reality while it was under development, and as part of the embargo on these beta clients, they wouldn't be allowed to publish it.

Obviously not good if it makes it into the public release.

Re: Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

#20

Post by Aloha »

cesarb wrote: post #10
kev009 wrote: post #3

How do you gaffe this bad? How is someone that incompetent in the decision making loop? Some random engineer creating the ucode or uploading it to the web doesn't come up with this kind of idea to change license language. These are edicts from management. I'd love for that conversation to leak in full.

I saw a tweet somewhere (IIRC in the anandtech sidebar, unfortunately I'm not finding it right now) where the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode which leaked into the final version.

This is also what I suspect
Post reply on HN