Nvidia's closed-source policy (was parport zip drive)
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:39:43AM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> I kinda agree with nvidia myself. They've got the 3d graphics market on the
> PC corned. Why would you give away that just for a driver? From what I've
> seen, they have OSSed the kernel-interfaces of the driver. That's fine with
> me.
>
> If they want to have to give extra support to keep that edge, good for them.
That argument is utter bullshit. If ATI or Matrox wanted to know how they
programmed their video hardware, they'd dissassemble the binaries. I don't
think it would help them much anyway, though. It's not like knowing how to
program it is the same as knowing how it works or how its implemented.
The public are the ones hurt by keeping the source closed, since stuff that
will be distributed to the public has to be legal. Stuff that other
companies do for their own benefit can be shady, like disassembling drivers
if that would actually help, but illegal stuff can't be distributed.
IMHO, any hardware company with half a brain should realize that the better
the software that runs their hardware is, the more people will want their
hardware. If NV had accelerated 3D using Free software, I wouldn't think
twice about buying their hardware. As it is, I'm in favour of Matrox or
ATI. I'm getting a used 3dfx card, too.
--
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@llama.nslug. , ns.ca)
"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE
Reply to: