From Andrepeter.Heiner #at# vtt.fi  Fri Dec  2 04:16:33 1994
Received: from vtt.fi  for Andrepeter.Heiner /at\vtt.fi
	by www.ccl.net (8.6.9/930601.1506) id DAA03236; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 03:51:49 -0500
Received: from geeni.bel.vtt.fi (bel.vtt.fi [130.188.30.1]) by vtt.fi (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA00992 for <chemistry&$at$&ccl.net>; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 10:51:23 +0200
Received: by geeni.bel.vtt.fi (920330.SGI/1.1.geeni)
	id AA01821; Fri, 2 Dec 94 10:47:39 GMT
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 10:47:39 GMT
From: Andrepeter.Heiner: at :vtt.fi (Andrepeter Heiner)
Message-Id: <9412021047.AA01821 _-at-_)geeni.bel.vtt.fi>
To: chemistry ":at:" ccl.net
Subject: CCL:PENTIUM BUG



Netters,

considering the bug in de FPU of the Pentium, I think we have arrived at a most
strange relation between supplier and and user. So far all software has been 
delivered without a warranty for good functioning, but to my knowledge no
supplier ever sold software containing a bug he knew of. Intel, being one of 
the main hardware suppliers on the market, for some reason, thinks they can 
get away with that and leaves the proof of a ill-functioning processor to the
end-user. I suggest all PENTIUM-owners just send their processor back because
it is going to be too silly for words that in research articles the author
has to state the processors serial number, or state the result of the bug-test,
in order to have his results be taken seriously by colleagues. To cut a long 
story short, Intel is morally obliged to replace ill-functioning processors, 
unless they want to make a joke of the "Intel Inside" slogan.
This does not take away the responsibility of the scientist to carefully examine
the results we get.

Sincerely,

Andrepeter.