Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spectre/Meltdown/L1TF/MDS Mitigation Costs On An Intel Dual Core + HT Laptop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ArchLinux
    replied
    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
    Idiot if I sell a car to a person I have to guarantee it from issues so to avoid damages. Ignorant.
    Good thing at least you would lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Azrael5
    replied
    Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
    Once again great stuff by Michael

    Really weirdo stuff by the commenters:
    Intel isn't under obligation to have vulnerability-free products, geniuses.
    Idiot if I sell a car to a person I have to guarantee it from issues so to avoid damages. Ignorant.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
    So you want it to be secure or you want it to be fast? Because they had a fault that prevent both (mostly in servers) at the same time, so they provided a fix for you.

    You're free to try and sue of course if your expectations were not met.
    First of all, don't necropost. You're over a year late to respond.
    Second, no: I want it to be secure and as fast as it was advertised to be. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You deserve to get what you paid for, and what you pay for should be able to hold up to the claims or level of performance that is advertised. Benchmarks are effectively part of the marketing, even 3rd party benchmarks. Many people buy a product because of benchmark results. So when the product is littered with vulnerabilities and must be downgraded in order to remain secure, that's misleading.

    As for suing them, there's already been lawsuits over that. I'm not sure how they turned out.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArchLinux
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Yes actually, they do. A lot of people move to a city because of its public safety. People use banks for the sake of keeping it protected, either from hazards or from other people (at least in principle). You don't move to a city solely because of the police, and you don't use a bank solely because of their vault door.

    If antimalware companies claim they're supposed to protect your PC and fail to do so, as far as I'm concerned, yes, you should be reimbursed for damages, because the product failed to do its job.
    You're missing the point though: it doesn't matter if Intel fixes the problems quickly. You bought a product expecting a certain level of performance and with the mitigations, you aren't getting what you paid for. THAT'S the problem here.
    So, if you want to argue "then leave the CPU unsecured" well, that's still misleading, because nobody in their right mind would deliberately buy something known to be unsafe when pretty much all competing products from every other brand can accomplish the same thing without being unsafe.

    I do and will.
    So you want it to be secure or you want it to be fast? Because they had a fault that prevent both (mostly in servers) at the same time, so they provided a fix for you.

    You're free to try and sue of course if your expectations were not met.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArchLinux
    replied
    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post

    So you are an idiot. If an item is affected by vulnerabilities which can damage the user, the enterprise must notify the vulnerabilities to the user, idiot.
    Or what?

    Leave a comment:


  • angrypie
    replied
    If only enthusiasts boycott Intel it won't make a dent in their brand and sales. Laypeople/know-it-all dumbfucks will still look for and buy Intel products. Most don't even know AMD exists, and those who do still think they're an off-brand that copies Intel's designs like it's 1990.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
    Neither of those examples have anything to do with the product you purchase.
    Yes actually, they do. A lot of people move to a city because of its public safety. People use banks for the sake of keeping it protected, either from hazards or from other people (at least in principle). You don't move to a city solely because of the police, and you don't use a bank solely because of their vault door.
    Are actual security companies (AV/FW) obligated to reimburse you for damages caused by malware? If Intel loudly claimed to fix all security faults ASAP yet actually wouldn't at _all_, yeah, you could sue and have a point.
    If antimalware companies claim they're supposed to protect your PC and fail to do so, as far as I'm concerned, yes, you should be reimbursed for damages, because the product failed to do its job.
    You're missing the point though: it doesn't matter if Intel fixes the problems quickly. You bought a product expecting a certain level of performance and with the mitigations, you aren't getting what you paid for. THAT'S the problem here.
    So, if you want to argue "then leave the CPU unsecured" well, that's still misleading, because nobody in their right mind would deliberately buy something known to be unsafe when pretty much all competing products from every other brand can accomplish the same thing without being unsafe.
    Their non-invulnerable solutions aren't up to your standards, buy something different.
    I do and will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Azrael5
    replied
    Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
    Once again great stuff by Michael

    Really weirdo stuff by the commenters:
    Intel isn't under obligation to have vulnerability-free products, geniuses.
    So you are an idiot. If an item is affected by vulnerabilities which can damage the user, the enterprise must notify the vulnerabilities to the user, idiot.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArchLinux
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Um... yeah, they kinda are... By your logic, are you suggesting cities aren't obligated to have police? Or that banks shouldn't have hefty vault doors?
    Nobody in their right mind would ever willingly buy a less secure product, especially if it meant securing it meant losing the performance you were advertised. Considering the vulnerabilities are at the hardware level, that means it is a design fault on their end. There's no argument here; Intel is obligated to sell a non-faulty product. So whether you care about the vulnerabilities or not, Intel is still obligated to be vulnerability-free.
    Neither of those examples have anything to do with the product you purchase. Are actual security companies (AV/FW) obligated to reimburse you for damages caused by malware? If Intel loudly claimed to fix all security faults ASAP yet actually wouldn't at _all_, yeah, you could sue and have a point.

    Their non-invulnerable solutions aren't up to your standards, buy something different.
    Last edited by ArchLinux; 27 May 2019, 10:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
    Intel isn't under obligation to have vulnerability-free products, geniuses.
    Um... yeah, they kinda are... By your logic, are you suggesting cities aren't obligated to have police? Or that banks shouldn't have hefty vault doors?
    Nobody in their right mind would ever willingly buy a less secure product, especially if it meant securing it meant losing the performance you were advertised. Considering the vulnerabilities are at the hardware level, that means it is a design fault on their end. There's no argument here; Intel is obligated to sell a non-faulty product. So whether you care about the vulnerabilities or not, Intel is still obligated to be vulnerability-free.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X