Originally Posted by Defoler
Historically every company in that group had questionable ethics. AMD, intel, nvidia, even ARM, all had their fair share if unethical behaviour in order to try and push their products at the cost of others.
Intel and nvidia are just bigger, so we see them as bigger vultures, and with AMD being the smaller, AMD we consider as the underdog so we accept some of their tactics as a pushback or acceptable because they are only trying to play in the big boys fields.
So mentality wise, we criticise intel and nvidia more for things even AMD are doing.
Same reason why the companies that find bugs in intel or AMD chips, mostly find them in intel, because they are looking more at intel chips. Same reason why you hear about a huge amount of bugs in windows and think that linux feels saver. Even though if you were licensed to redhat as a customer, you would find out that redhat release as many bug fixes (daily) as microsoft, because the amount of bugs and security holes.
Ahhhhh, but cause or effect? AMD didn't have that kind of behavior until it became the market norm. In a dog eat dog world, sometimes you have to bite someone regardless of it being against your nature. The axiom, "be careful who you choose as your enemy because that's who you'll become most like" comes to mind here. Intel was literally paying competitors to blackball AMD, when the legal system literally takes years even for an injunction into that kind of behavior, you have little choice but to engage in similar tactics if you choose not to fold.
Also, yes I already directly pointed out there is more eyes on Intel chips. Take care with the analogy though, POSIX is inherently far safer because its entire design philosophy is to fail closed and almost always you can apply the changes without bringing systems down. Windows is open by default and M$ are trying to blacklist access to safe levels but it's an impossible task, the majority of security updates also require the system to come down. You're trying to make a valid point, but using a very bad example. Fixing bugs isn't the problem, its how you respond to them that matters.
In some ways your chosen example just reinforces the point I was making, RHEL (AMD) is fundamentally designed to be more secure and resilient than Windows (Intel) which cuts corners for the cheap improvements despite existing evidence against the approach.