🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JSP.90Oct25155458@glia.u.washington.edu> jsp@glia.u.washington.edu (Jeff Prothero) writes:
>
> [A very reasonable complaint about a bug in an 80386 costing a week of
>  work, and, to rub salt in the wounds, Intel considers the bug list 
>  proprietary information.]

>This policy strikes me as reprehensible and downright stupid.

No argument there; I'm a big believer in making bug lists public (even
though companies I work for may not necessarily agree...). Moto does;
I have bug lists for each rev of the 88100/88200 chips. Getting them
was not hard; I called up Moto and they faxed them to me.

>There
>are a *lot* of '386s out there, some of them in embedded systems
>performing life-critical tasks.  It doesn't take much imagination to
>construct a scenario leading from a deliberately suppressed bug report
>to bodybag(s) to a massive lawsuit.

Hmmmm...

"Motorola, Inc. General policy does not recommend the use of its components
in life support applications wherein a failure or malfunction of the component
may directly threaten life or injury. Per Motorola Terms and Conditions of
Sale, the user of Motorola components in life support applications assumes all
risk of such use and indemnifies Motorola against all damages."

and...

"NATIONAL PRODUCTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED FOR USE AS CRITICAL COMPONENTS IN LIFE
SUPPOERT DEVICES OR SYSTEMS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION. As used herein:

1) Life support devices or systems are devices or systems which, (a) are
intended for surgical implant into the body, or (b) support or sustain life,
and whose failure to perform, when properly used in accordance with 
instructions for use provided in the labeling, can reasonably be expected to
result in significant injury to the user.

2) A critical component is any component of a life support device or system
whose failure to perform can be reasonably expected to cause the failure of
the life support device or system, or to affect its safety or effectiveness."

These statements were found in obvious places in Motorola and National data
sheets. Interestingly I searched and could find no such disclaimer on Intel
data sheets. Of course, I have no idea whether such disclaimers are worth
the paper they are printed on.

>My questions:
>
>Does anyone want to explain why Intel adopted this policy?

A combination of shortsightedness, arrogance and stupidity?

>Does anyone want to *defend* this policy?

Not me!

>Is this SOP in the industry?  Do Motorola, AMD, NS ...  follow the
>same policy?

I do know that Motorola and National make this information available
if you ask for it. Can't say about others.

>Can I go to Motorola for a list of known Intel bugs, and vice versa?

Wouldn't be very sporting, would it? :-)

>Is there a net archive of known bugs?  Any interest in forming one?
>Any other affordable source?  Any reports to contribute?

Sounds like a GREAT idea. I'm not real keen on typing in the 88100/88200
bug sheets I have, but maybe someone from Moto has them in machine-readable
form?

-- Jerry Callen
   jcallen@encore.com