Remix.run Logo
lightedman 3 days ago

"Ideally we would have some government action to force this given the ongoing cost to society in corrupted data"

Why is it so often Australia with the "We must force unnecessary things upon people" attitude?

adrian_b 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This would be a consumer protection law like any other such law.

Forcing the vendors to sell only products that do what they are advertised cannot be considered in any way as "forcing unnecessary things upon people".

Any computer without ECC memory is a computer that does not compute from time to time and you have no idea when that happens.

Originally, any IBM PC or compatible had memory error detection.

All this problem of the computers without ECC memory has been created by some evil Intel employees, who have conceived around 1994 a scheme for market segmentation between "Pentium" and "Pentium Pro".

So they removed memory error detection support from the Pentium chipsets (Intel Triton), so that this would remain a marketing feature exclusive to the "Pro" Intel products.

Obviously the removal of this feature from "consumer" products was done without any price reduction, which made happy also the memory vendors, because this trick increased their profits.

So in the next years this market segmentation method became the "standard" business practice, preying on the naivety of most computer users.

A consumer protection law should force that any computer or motherboard must support ECC, which adds a completely negligible cost.

The end users may buy non-ECC modules, if they choose so, but non-ECC modules should be sold like cigarettes, with a visible advertisement that using such modules may cause unpredictable errors in your computer.

flaunf221 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Any computer without ECC memory is a computer that does not compute from time to time

So are the computers with ECC memory. It's not an absolute protection either.

graemep 2 days ago | parent [-]

Seatbelts and working brakes are not an absolute protection either, but i still want them.

lightedman 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"All this problem of the computers without ECC memory has been created by some evil Intel employees, who have conceived around 1994 a scheme for market segmentation between "Pentium" and "Pentium Pro"."

I hate to break it to you but the computer I had in the 80s didn't come with ECC. Non-ECC computing was a thing WELL BEFORE Intel tried to think of market segmentation. Revisionist history is not welcomed here.

etbe 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The original IBM PC/XT had parity RAM. In the early PC/XT and PC/AT clones you had banks of 9 DIP sockets for memory chips with the 9th being for parity.

The DDR4 ECC RAM has 72 bits total and 64bits of data which means the same 9/8 ratio of data storage to usable data as the original PC/XT.

The Z80 and 6502 based computers in the 80s typically didn't have parity RAM. The Amiga and Macintosh were higher performance systems in the 80s which also didn't have parity RAM.

We could and should have gone straight from parity RAM to ECC RAM for everything.

adrian_b 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The home computers like those from Commodore, Apple, Atari etc. lacked protection against memory errors, but the computers intended for business, like the IBM PC and all its clones had memory error detection capability in the form of parity.

Absolutely all IBM PC originals or clones until those with 486 and with the early Pentium variants supported parity on the motherboard.

The user could choose to not install the parity chip (or when the first memory modules appeared there were also slightly cheaper modules without the parity chip), but that was the user's decision, all the motherboards supported parity.

On IBM PC compatibles, the lack of protection against memory errors had never existed before Intel segmented the market between "non-Pro" and "Pro", by launching the Triton chipset, which no longer supported parity memory.

As long as the memory modules were byte-wide, only parity could be implemented. ECC memory could appear only later, after the passage to wide memory modules.

inigyou 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is it unnecessary. Australia has tons of laws about faulty products. All developed countries do

lightedman 3 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

gleenn 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That particular quote did stand out to me. I think the counter claim is that if everyone uses software everywhere for everything, there is a very real societal cost for damaged data and if it's hard to detect then there is no way to prevent or measure harm. I think the "invisible hand" free market is showing some serious strain in modern times. People stopped using leaded-gas because it was causing measurable decreases in IQ for generations. I don't care how much you want to save a few dollars if it harms a lot of people and is difficult to measure. Everything else seems like a race to the bottom price so pushing the market in this manner doesn't bother me in the least. If you are running a server with others' data at stake, it seems like an obvious benefit for society on the whole to address the problem rather than serve some cheap datacenter operators.

Xirdus 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because despite geographical location, Australia is a western country, and all western countries are like that.

some_random 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's a pattern that reinforces itself, as a nanny state develops it's opinion of it's people worsens and it's more willing to use force to compel them.

_factor 3 days ago | parent [-]

Right, the opinion shifting to the people being unworthy of uncorrupted data unless they’re wealthy enough to pay the artificial extortion price for integrity.

CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

What you're actually saying is that I shouldn't be allowed to determine what kind of RAM my application needs. Instead, you are saying that someone with a gun should dictate this choice to me.

That's what we mean when we say that people with your point of view are promoting nanny-statism. It amounts to infantilization of adult consumers and subsequent disempowerment.

Occasionally such legislation can be justified, as when genuinely hazardous products are involved, or products whose use involves wide-ranging externalities, but usually not. People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.

etbe 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

How do YOU propose doing this when most computer "experts" have never used ECC RAM and when it's only available in high end specialist systems that aren't on sale in regular computer stores?

I think my knowledge of the topic is pretty good but I learned from this discussion that almost all AMD CPUs support ECC RAM and you apparently just need a motherboard to match. When accompanying people who were buying "gamer" PCs (after they rejected my recommendation for a second hand workstation grade computer with ECC RAM) I never witnessed store staff saying "hey you could get a motherboard with ECC support".

CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's simply none of my business whether or not someone does the homework to understand what kind of RAM they should buy. I bothered to inform myself; they can, too.

_factor 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Next up. CPUs that will spit out the wrong calculations 1/1M times. You’ll have to pay more for the enterprise version to get uncorrupted processing. The spare traces cost 5 cents, but we can charge 20% more for the privilege instead.

Just because you can allow it, doesn’t mean you should. I don’t want to live in a world where you need a PhD to avoid being scammed by increasingly sophisticated ploys. Data isn’t free anymore and the right questions are becoming harder to ask.

CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent [-]

Data isn’t free anymore and the right questions are becoming harder to ask.

Ridiculous. Access to knowledge has never been as widely and freely available as it is now (no thanks to the nanny-statists.)

etbe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If it's none of your business why are you getting so involved in this discussion?

some_random 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's none of their business whether or not others choose to use ECC. It's absolutely his business whether or not authorities force them to use ECC RAM or else.

etbe a day ago | parent [-]

Why is taxing non-ECC RAM instead of ECC RAM more of a problem in this regard than the thousands of other taxes?

The government imposed a 12% GST on all computer gear just because they felt like it. Would making ECC RAM GST exempt satisfy you?

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Because failure to speak up when bad laws are proposed results in bad laws getting passed.

some_random 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Any one of thousands of policy options that aren't "just ban it".

etbe a day ago | parent [-]

But no-one here has advocated banning anything. Please read before replying.

graemep 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.

So you think its realistic to expect the average consumer to assess the pros and cons of using ECC RAM?

We could solve this by better information which addresses your concerns about it being nanny statism. We would need it to be something that consumers understand - e.g. We could require all computers without ECC RAM to have a warning label saying something like "this computer uses cheap memory so is prone to crashing and losing your data". I strongly suspect the impact of that would be very similar to that of just banning non-ECC RAM.

I would also argue that having reliable RAM is a reasonable extension of existing legal requirements for consumer products: e.g. that they are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose (to use the current UK terminology).

some_random 2 days ago | parent [-]

There are two issues with nanny statism, the first is poorly informed kneejerk overreactions, the second is immediately jumping to heavyhanded policies. In your example even the absurd warning label is significantly less of an issue than flat out banning non ECC RAM.

graemep 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree in principle and there are many examples of it.

I just do not think that banning non ECC is an example of nanny statism.

some_random 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

When you are used to thinking of citizens as children who need a nanny, all problems become bedtime shaped.