Intel crosses an unacceptable ethical line(semiaccurate.com)
semiaccurate.com
Intel crosses an unacceptable ethical line
http://semiaccurate.com/2017/03/27/intel-crosses-unacceptable-ethical-line/
13 comments
The article isn't loading for me, but SemiAccurate isn't a totally unknown site. They're a bit like The Register for hardware, with an overblown writing style, but their analysis is decent.
The google cache has at least the text: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B5DWGh4...
"There are more things in heaven save earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - this website is well known among chip designers and hardware enthusiasts. Your ignorance of their existence is no barometer of the article's veracity.
I really wasn't looking for a final nail here but the 'hot article' link On this site is a 2012 article called 'Microsoft has failed'....
It's 2017 and ms doubled in value since that was written...
It's 2017 and ms doubled in value since that was written...
This is what happens when the bottom-line requires employees some type of performance: the technology developed has its merits and is performing, but the data is "inflated."
The rate of results requested in the today world is very high, so although a lot of people with a lot of talent are working at Intel, I do not pretend they are able to do better than this.
Certainly the practice is deplorable. Welcome in the magic bubble of the "marketing fuss"!
The rate of results requested in the today world is very high, so although a lot of people with a lot of talent are working at Intel, I do not pretend they are able to do better than this.
Certainly the practice is deplorable. Welcome in the magic bubble of the "marketing fuss"!
Even if their stats were totally accurate, it would have made no difference. No one is buying 10,000 of these things based solely on what the vendor reports it can do anyway right? So who cares?
If we were building out a lot of capacity which could use these drives then we would be delinquent in our capacity to not test these personally anyway.
Vendor benchmarks don't translate to reality? Shock horror. If someone gets burned because they accepted vendor fud as gospel without doing their own testing thus ended up with stuff that doesn't work for their application then that's their fault alone.. Once those people are replaced with those who are able to do their jobs then this is just a out of court replacement deal and NDA between legal and vendor like happens all the time anyway.
And besides, no one is buying these anyway.
If we were building out a lot of capacity which could use these drives then we would be delinquent in our capacity to not test these personally anyway.
Vendor benchmarks don't translate to reality? Shock horror. If someone gets burned because they accepted vendor fud as gospel without doing their own testing thus ended up with stuff that doesn't work for their application then that's their fault alone.. Once those people are replaced with those who are able to do their jobs then this is just a out of court replacement deal and NDA between legal and vendor like happens all the time anyway.
And besides, no one is buying these anyway.
"If someone gets burned because they accepted vendor fud as gospel without doing their own testing thus ended up with stuff that doesn't work for their application then that's their fault alone" - absolutely not. Most numbers are legally binding, even if under ideal conditions.
"And besides, no one is buying these anyway" - your comments are full of ignorance laden hubris.
"And besides, no one is buying these anyway" - your comments are full of ignorance laden hubris.
You are an enabler.
I completely agree. The "trust but verify" approach is very balanced and effective. Absolutely nothing to say!
Yet I am able to pinpoint a lot of people in the SMBs that will simply accept the data proposed in the demos (and for many reasons, not because of incompetence).
So yes in my world, but being aware this is not always happening.
Yet I am able to pinpoint a lot of people in the SMBs that will simply accept the data proposed in the demos (and for many reasons, not because of incompetence).
So yes in my world, but being aware this is not always happening.
Well, they can't really even do that... ignoring that SMBs should be buying storage as appliances instead of building it (it's massively cheaper TCO wise and in such a case the SSD choice is up to emc or netapp or whoever anyway) and assuming theyre in the rabbit hole of building out storage themselves, then youll typically be buying servers from dell or hp or whoever and you bet they've done this testing for you and you will have zero choice of the SSDs that come in your big 36 sff 2Us..
If you're in the position to be buying raw drives like this, then you're doing things above the SMB level and wouldn't be burned by this sort of thing...
At least... I hope..
If you're in the position to be buying raw drives like this, then you're doing things above the SMB level and wouldn't be burned by this sort of thing...
At least... I hope..
Sooo bullshit marketing as usual ? Just new with your relations with intel.
Description of the transgression begins in the 7th paragraph.
How do you describe IME and it's implications then? That's the ethical line the enlightened should be offended by.
Sorry to be harsh, but such a bold headline from a site that no one has heard of (with a probably accurate name) feels like It was written by a PR droid whose free beer account just got cut off by Intel.
Also; who gives a crap about low end SSDs? I doubt anyone you know will ever even see one of these in the wild unless you decide to buy cheap gear for some kind of statement or other..