[Added comp.sys.intel. Followups set.] Jonas Munsin wrote: : If you check www.slashdot.org you will see that the bug was raported : at Fri Nov 07 at 2:56PM (actually it might have been reported even : earlier, as that might be the date of the correction (which was a false : correction)). And it that first post, #linuxos on efnet given credit. _Not_ Friday the 7th. Thursday, 6 Nov 97, 9:57pm USA Central Standard Time. Full text follows (snipping a few extraneous header lines): ------ From: noname@noname.com Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: This code will lock up any P5 machine, even usermode Linux! (F0 0F C7 C8) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:57:33 -0800 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Message-ID: <3462ADCD.135B@noname.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-102-5.ots.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Hi, Check this out. If you execute F0 0F C7 C8 on a P5 it will lock the machine up. This is true for any operating system including usermode Linux. It's pretty cool. Basically, the opcodes are an invalid form of cmpxchg8b eax with a lock prefix. Has anyone seen this before? The problem doesn't show itself for the Pentium Pro or Pentium 2. ------ You will note that several news reports, such as Alexander Wolfe's in _EE Times_, erroneously claim the story broke on comp.sys.intel. On the other hand, C|Net (www.news.com) rather lamely claims in every story on the subject -- in defiance of the facts -- to have "first reported" the bug. Lastly, a number of stories have gotten wrong the intial post's date. Considering how heavily these organisations obviously lean on netnews, they seem to take little care to report on it correctly. I wonder if they'll see fit to mention that Linux patched around the bug in both the development and release kernels, within seven days (and still not word one from Micro$oft)? [comp.sys.intel re-added. Followups set.] In comp.os.linux.hardware, rcollins@slip.net (Robert Collins) wrote as follows: Rick Moen wrote: >> You will note that several news reports, such as Alexander Wolfe's in >> _EE Times_, erroneously claim that the story broke on comp.sys.intel. > So what. So, the fact that it broke on a _Linux_ newsgroup, and that key technical facts emerged there _before_ they broke on comp.sys.intel, is newsworthy, and has been omitted through shoddy reporting. > Is the actual newsgroup name the piece that's newsworthy? Here, it is a significant part of what's newsworthy, yes. For reasons noted. >> On the other hand, C|Net (www.news.com) rather lamely claims in every >> story on the subject -- in defiance of the facts -- to have "first >> reported" the bug. > Context is everything. Isn't it, though? Reading the C|Net reports leaves you the impression of enterprising reporters pulling the story out of thin air, rather than cribbing it from a Linux newsgroup. C|Net's omission of its source was, of course, my point. > From the context of the C/Net article, I knew they meant that they were > the first *NEWS ORGANIZATION* to report the bug. ...and being Robert R. Collins, _you_ knew where they got it from. Most of the other readers did not -- and certainly were _very_ likely to be misled by that wording. Which was my point. Which you're ignoring. > I don't consider comp.os.linux.advocacy a news organization. Therefore > I don't have any problem with the C/Net article. That is a non-sequitur. Further, in this case, comp.os.linux.advocacy in fact functioned in a manner indistinguishable _from_ a news organisation. And went uncredited by C|Net. >> Lastly, a number of stories have gotten wrong the intial post's >> date. > Who cares? Is that really significant? If you care about accuracy, yes. If they get such fundamental things wrong in cases where the real data are eminently and easily available, doesn't that make you wonder what else they're going to bollix where you cannot similarly check up on them? > And what was the initial posting date? Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:57:33 -0800 (As previously mentioned, USA Central Standard Time.) > Can you make one blanket statement for all international time zones? Now, you're getting extremely silly. (And where do you imagine C|Net writes from, Djakarta?) >> Considering how heavily these organisations obviously lean on netnews, >> they seem to take little care to report on it correctly. I wonder if >> they'll see fit to mention that Linux patched around the bug in both >> the development and release kernels, within seven days (and still not >> word one from Micro$oft)? > Again, who cares? Wait, let me guess... Um, I know! People who are bothered if everything outside the usual Redmond-hypnotised blinkers simply _fails_ to be reported, no matter how significant? Or maybe not. Who's to say? Maybe nobody _does_ care. Maybe news is only news if it comes from major purchasers of advertising space (and never if it involves freeware). "We were always at war with Eastasia...." ;-> > Are we fighting with significance issues here? _We_? Maybe not. However, you appear to have summarily ignored my points. To each his own. > The newsworthiness of the story isn't the date it first appeared on a > usenet newsgroup; it isn't which newsgroup it first appeared on; and > it isn't whether or not Linux has a patch. We have a difference of opinion, apparently, as these appear to me to be significant facts. Additionally, the fact that Linux is (or was, when last I checked) one of only two Intel-based OSes to have a fix, and the _only_ one to issue public source code for a fix, seems to me to be not just significant but a _key_ fact. Likewise omitted. > The bug itself is the newsworthiness. All of those other details > are just filler for the story. Heh. Go work as editor for an industry paper. Tell all your reporters "It doesn't matter if you get the supporting facts all wrong. All that matters is to identify the overall issue." You'll get fired. I _do_ hope so, anyway. > As for Micro$oft? They have made a "word" on the subject. Since you're nitpicking, they in fact did not, when I posted that. > Their "word" appears at the Intel web site. [Bronx cheer] Something to the effect of "We're working closely with Intel blah blah blah", if I recall correctly, right?" Thanks, Robert. I haven't laughed that hard all week! > Maybe you should get your own story straight before you worry > about other people. Nothwithstanding the fact that those people are paid full-time as _professional reporters on technology_, and I'm not, it seems to me that I'm doing a whole lot better, just as an amateur commentator firing off instant Usenet posts when I'm half asleep. I do admire that rhetorical fluorish, though. Thanks for attempting to play. -- Cheers, Long ago, there lived a creature with a Rick Moen voice like a vacuum cleaner. We know little rick (at) hugin.imat.com about it, but we do know that it ate cats.