Let me break this down...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Ehem just to be clear, the thread and my links are about at least eight NEW vulernabilities, not so much about the already known ones. 
... |
Let *me* be clear.
My post was about the 'new' bugs as well, in reference to the known bugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
Read the article...
|
I read it, and *understand* what they are discussing.
However, IF:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
...the patching so far has introduced knew problems itself...
|
Then these are not technically *NEW* vulnerabilities, but instead
incomplete patches/buggy software patches that need to be corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
...
I've seen several "before and after" benchmarks for Linux and Windows.
...
|
I've been following this (this=Meltdown/Specte) regularly since at least early January, when a bunch of articles started covering it.
And more recently with Benchmarks used to determine where, and how much performance loss after the patches.
This part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
...
Several processors from Intel, and AMD were tested.
Meltdown usually resulted in performance losses, which varied by task.
Spectre had performance losses, but not to the degree of Meltdown.
(both were mostly I/O task, but some other task as well.)
...
|
was just a bit on info on where those patches had performance losses.
AND to setup this piece of info:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
...
Except for the FX8350, which after a Spectre patch ( I forget which atm), was actually faster on several task...
...
|
Intel CPUs have Meltdown and the patches reduce performance (particularly in I/O).
Some INTEL and (AMD) Ryzen have Spectre.
And all of these suffer performance losses with the patches applied.
However . the FX-8350 had a performance _*GAIN*_.
I have a FX-8350, I'm typing on it now... SO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
...
Maybe this is the next performance boost for my PC.
...
|
This comment was 50/50 a joke, and a serious statement.
Joke side: phhbbtttt, patches will slow it down... it didn't last time!
Serious side: Well it was warned that it could be a sizable loss, but I actually got a fair gain, when all others did not. We shall see what happens this time.
*IF* the patches follow the same "curve", then my FX-8350 could very well get another performance boost. (I'm not saying this next set of patches will, but it is possible.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
|
If YOU want to look at the benchmarks for the last batch of patches for Spectre...
You might find the one I mentioned.
Also, you might get an idea of what to expect with any further performance losses/gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
...
I'll see if I can dig up the benchmarks.
Barracuda
|
I don't have it bookmarked and I don't remember which one it was, but I will look for it and try to find it.
So *YOU* can see the results yourself.
Now on to the rest of your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
...
And it seems to me that it will not stop there. Even less so when considering that the patching so far has introduced knew problems itself, and Microsoft is in open retreat from Windows regarding its quality assurance.
|
This is just reinforcing my first post in this thread, if the *new* bugs are from the first patches, then it's just buggy patches.
As far as Microsoft/Windows, They've had it far worse than Linux has (at least for me), as far as stability and performance is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
The whole hardware philosphy, especially for CPUs, is compromised.
|
I don't recall most people I've ever talked to being overly concerned about security, they just want it *faster*.
When you put all of your valuables on a shelf acessible from the *outside* of your home, you should not be surprised if (/when) you find them missing.
Barracuda