🚀 go-pugleaf

All right, all right!!  I suppose no one noticed the portion of my original
posting which noted I had _no_ connection with the silicon people (you
remember, the guys who designed the chips with/without the alleged
instruction?).  I'm a _software_ person.  Believe it or not, I wasn't aware
that Intel may/may not have tried to limit the availability of info on the
alleged instruction.  So now I've been educated.  I can trust all of you to
give me the straight scoop, right?  You wouldn't withhold information, would
you?  ;-)

Seriously, assuming info on the alleged instruction wasn't freely available,
what's the big deal?  From what I've heard, the instruction was intended for
the testing of the component and was never intended for general use.  So
someone figured out it exists, or some large customer wanted to do their own
in-coming testing and the info leaked out.  How does that put an obligation
on Intel to provide that info to anyone who asks?  (If an unnamed computer
company were to buy a substantial chunk of Intel and then ask for "inside
info", you've got to expect they'd get something for their money -- do the
flamers in the audience own Intel stock?).

(Now I'm really asking for it...) There's clearly a difference between not
documenting the MOV instruction, not documenting the alleged LOADALL, and
giving design details to the Japanese.  Where would _you_ draw the line?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Plamondon, Intel Corp, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy, Hillsboro, OR  97124-6497
Internet: peter@langlab1.hf.intel.com                           +1 503-696-5219
UUNET   : uunet!littlei!langlab1!peter     "I speak for myself, as best I can."
UUCP    : tektronix!psu-cs!foobar!langlab1.hf.intel.com!peter    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------