[TriLUG] Intel bug in the news today

[David Burton via TriLUG]

I think "net neutrality" is a great big nothingburger. Net neutrality
regulations are a solution in search of a problem. The only example of a
real, relevant problem addressed by net neutrality regs was many years ago
when some ISPs tried to coerce their customers into using their own VoIP
products instead of Vonage etc.

Don't get me wrong. Like every red-blooded American I detest TWC/Spectrum
and AT&T, for their insatiable price-gouging, and their complete disdain
for customers' needs.

Why do they have no interest at all in proactively detecting and correcting
customers' connectivity problems? It's not like they can't detect dropped
packets from their end!

And what kind of company *forbids their tech support reps from having
access to email,* fer cryin out loud??? *Spectrum*, that's what kind.

But I don't think the presence or absence of net neutrality regs will make
any noticeable difference.

Now let's talk about a possible* real *problem. Does anyone know anything
about the big Intel bug in the news today is? Breathless headlines say the
fix could slow some workloads by up to 30%:

   -
   https://www.pcmag.com/news/358249/intel-chips-have-a-major-design-flaw-and-the-fix-means-slowe
   -
   https://hothardware.com/news/intel-cpu-bug-kernel-memory-isolation-linux-windows-macos
   - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
   -
   http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-mysterious-case-of-the-linux-page-table


Dave



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:21 AM, bak via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 09:08, Thomas Delrue via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 01/03/2018 10:01 AM, Jeremy Davis via TriLUG wrote:
> >> hmmm.. almost smells like the compromise of net neutrality.. maybe not
> but
> >> it still offers a glimpse of what to expect if net neutrality goes
> away.. I
> >> can see how the ISPs would love to cramp Google's style if they could..
> >
> > Big players can either pay to be prioritized or have enough weight to
> > make ISPs think twice about blocking access to them because said ISP
> > would have its customers complain; but small players will be footing the
> > bill for everyone else (what's new there) since they don't have that
> > type of weight to throw around nor will they ever, as will be made
> > certain by every-more-charging ISPs if they ever become successful.
> >
>
> Well put — it cannot be stated enough that the loss of Net Neutrality is a
> blow to small Internet-based businesses. Indeed, revoking Net Neutrality is
> both anti-business and anti-competition.
>
> The only businesses it is good for are ISPs — you know, the
> mono/duopolistic ones known far and wide for abusing their customers so
> flagrantly and for so long that they flee to someone, anyone else as soon
> as they have the opportunity.
>
> —bak
>