On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:52:05 -0400
RavenLX <ravenlx@sitesplace.net> wrote:
Hello RavenLX,
>This poses an interesting question: Why would a company keep something
>proprietary such as a driver?
Control. And the (misguided?) belief that they'll end up fielding tech
support questions for driver modifications they didn't make.
>As a programmer, I don't think many (if any) would be able to say,
>reverse-engineer a chip or device, etc. and replicate it just by
>looking at programming code (unless I'm mistaken)?
It'll certainly give people a few clues as to how nVidia achieve certain
things.
To be clear; I'm not supporting nVidia's position, I'm simply playing
Devil's Advocate. OTOH, I can't claim to be totally against nVidia's
position either; I use their GFX cards and drivers on two machines
here.
IOW, I don't pursue software freedoms with as much keenly as some others
do.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
They said we'd be artistically free, but that was on a bit of paper
Complete Control - The Clash
Attachment:
pgpfqtR4lrHl5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature