On 12/13/2013 11:30 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
Processors which need microcode updates?
And how are we breaking them when the defaults don't change? You already have the option, today, to not include microcode updates. It's just not on by default.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:28 PM, mrnuke <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com mailto:mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/2013 11:24 PM, Gabe Black wrote: > If you don't want to hear it, ignore it. We shouldn't break things just > so people with mistaken opinions are happy, nor how long it took to > rearrange things into a broken state. > What exactly are we breaking?
Defaults should work. Why should I have to know about a magic option that will make my computer not crash at random? If you don't want your computer to work that badly, you should also be motivated enough to find the magic switch that will break it. Breaking people by default in mysterious and unpredictable ways is a terrible idea.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:33 PM, mrnuke mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/2013 11:30 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
Processors which need microcode updates?
And how are we breaking them when the defaults don't change? You already have the option, today, to not include microcode updates. It's just not on by default.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:28 PM, mrnuke <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com mailto:mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/2013 11:24 PM, Gabe Black wrote: > If you don't want to hear it, ignore it. We shouldn't break things just > so people with mistaken opinions are happy, nor how long it took to > rearrange things into a broken state. > What exactly are we breaking?
-
Gabe Black -
mrnuke