| 1 |
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:34:42 +0200 |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > > Core2Duo |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I don't know the details but according to OpenBSDs Theo, the Core2Duo |
| 7 |
> > had some major design flaws that intel couldn't fix with microcode with |
| 8 |
> > some security implications. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> yeah, Theo for president! of the lunatic asylum. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
No need, especially as he's not here to defend himself, atleast he |
| 14 |
offered info to backup his statements even if he didn't try to prove |
| 15 |
anything. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
"http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631" |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"http://www.geek.com/images/geeknews/2006Jan/core_duo_errata__2006_01_21__full.gif" |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
p.s. It wasn't Theo that said anything about the malloc.conf flag for |
| 22 |
clearing memory on free instead of re-use, possibly being less secure. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm no troll, though I may hijack a thread a little too often, sorry. I |
| 26 |
can understand though don't agree with the tendency of Linux bashing |
| 27 |
on the OpenBSD list as they're license/ideals mean they can't use GPLd |
| 28 |
code and they have to deal with porting and other issues, of course some |
| 29 |
of those ports wouldn't exist or be as good without Linux. I don't |
| 30 |
understand the sensitivity to mentioning OpenBSD or Theo by the |
| 31 |
minority here as Linux is free to and does use their code. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Kc |
Archives
