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

Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

01.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#31

Post by yvdriess »

mannykannot wrote: post #13
nikeee wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to a German news article [0], Intel published benchmarks themselves [1]. [0]: https://heise.de/-4144515 [1]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...

Intel's attempt to suppress independent benchmarking suggests that this is not the whole story. This suspicion lingers even though it has removed the clause.

There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way.

I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#32

Post by smadge »

nerdponx wrote: post #20
another-cuppa wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially how all business works. When I got my first job before I went to university I was very surprised to learn that accountants always pay invoices on the very last day of the terms rather than as soon as they can. Since everyone else is going to pay you as late as they poassibly can, if you pay your invoices as soon as you can you'll lose out in the long run. The way everyone tries to get slightly mor…

It's not hard to construct a "multi agent" version of the prisoners dilemma, in which only one prisoner defecting would cause every prisoner to defect.

Canonically, the Prisoners Dilema is a game with one round and each player has no idea what strategy the other player will employ; the one round is taken simultaneously. In this version, it doesn’t make sense to say “one prisoner defecting would cause every prisoner to defect.” That sounds more like the tit-for-tat strategy in multi round prisoners dilema.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#33

Post by mg794613 »

tpxl wrote: post #16
forkerenok wrote: post #3

Can anyone with background in law in some of EU member states share their take on enforceability of the DeWitt clause[0]? I know it popped up quite a few times here, but very few commented on it in the context of EU. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt

AFAIK EULA's are unenforcable in the EU. Disclosure: IANAL

Eula's are enforceble. However they need to adhere to some standards. For the Dutch for example;general eula aka 'algemene voorwaarden' can not be 'unfair' this is quite ubiquitous, but still you cannot suddenly put 'anything' in there. This specific case would not hold as it is not fair to the customer. (faulty hardware has been supplied and this firmware is nothing but a correction to their shortcoming) I'm sorry that I cannot give a more elaborate explanation of this. IANAL.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#34

Post by mannykannot »

yvdriess wrote: post #31
mannykannot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel's attempt to suppress independent benchmarking suggests that this is not the whole story. This suspicion lingers even though it has removed the clause.

There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way. I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.

That's a fair point, though the best solution would be for Intel to commission independent or independently-audited benchmark tests.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#36

Post by sbarre »

ams6110 wrote: post #21
another-cuppa wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially how all business works. When I got my first job before I went to university I was very surprised to learn that accountants always pay invoices on the very last day of the terms rather than as soon as they can. Since everyone else is going to pay you as late as they poassibly can, if you pay your invoices as soon as you can you'll lose out in the long run. The way everyone tries to get slightly mor…

It's often not that they're really trying to screw the vendor, but that their cash flow doesn't allow immediate payment. A lot of commercial invoices have payment terms like "2/10, net 30" meaning you can take a 2% discount if you pay within 10 days. The cost of not taking this deal is an effective 35% annualized interest rate, so it's a big incentive to pay early, assuming your cash flow allows it.

I used to do this as a freelancer..

Some clients would insist on 45 or 60-day terms for my invoices, and as a self-employed individual (who at the time couldn't afford to be picky about my contracts), this really sucked.

Then someone suggested to me I put a clause offering a 2% discount if they paid within 15 days.

I definitely remember some of my clients taking me up on that and paying quickly, and it was a big help..

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#37

Post by Skunkleton »

yvdriess wrote: post #31
mannykannot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel's attempt to suppress independent benchmarking suggests that this is not the whole story. This suspicion lingers even though it has removed the clause.

There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way. I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.

Yeah, but what if the microcode killed cinebench performance? Wouldn't that be interesting?

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#38

Post by Joky »

Skunkleton wrote: post #37
yvdriess wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way. I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.

Yeah, but what if the microcode killed cinebench performance? Wouldn't that be interesting?

The problem is still the context in which cinebench would be ran. There are so many variable on a complex system that "the microcode killed cinebench perf" could very well be an over simplification of "the microcode in conjunction with this particular motherboard and this version of the kernel plus this particular Nvidia driver lead to a bad interaction that affects cinebench performance negatively".

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#39

Post by chrisbennet »

sbarre wrote: post #36
ams6110 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's often not that they're really trying to screw the vendor, but that their cash flow doesn't allow immediate payment. A lot of commercial invoices have payment terms like "2/10, net 30" meaning you can take a 2% discount if you pay within 10 days. The cost of not taking this deal is an effective 35% annualized interest rate, so it's a big incentive to pay early, assuming your cash flow allows it.

I used to do this as a freelancer.. Some clients would insist on 45 or 60-day terms for my invoices, and as a self-employed individual (who at the time couldn't afford to be picky about my contracts), this really sucked. Then someone suggested to me I put a clause offering a 2% discount if they paid within 15 days. I definitely remember some of my clients taking me up on that and paying quickly, and it was a big help…

I remember the first time I discovered what “30day net” meant. “What? You’re going to borrow my money for 30days???”

I’m a consultant and I charge $N for 30 net and 25% off if payed in 10. (25% is not a typo.) Very few of my clients do the math and decide they want to borrow my money for the full month.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#40

Post by [deleted] »

yvdriess wrote: post #31
mannykannot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel's attempt to suppress independent benchmarking suggests that this is not the whole story. This suspicion lingers even though it has removed the clause.

There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way. I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN