Re: video driver?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:09:53PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
> 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.
Last, but not least, their opponents a leg up in the perverse "you stepped
onto one of our 15432 otherwise worthless patents!".
> >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.
Having (even) incomplete sources does help in reverse engineering. With
determination, even the headers + machine code go a long way (you need
impressive skills, good tools and loads of patience, but those are
all available).
> 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.
Each has to find his/her position, and it'll be always a compromise.
For me, a behaviour like nVidia's is enough to avoid their products
in my purchase list.
Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlluD7EACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb5wgCeItyFsBOYNc3C6wRgz1r1y3o9
3EcAnR7ZSOWg0JtQpVEsIeIZp+oD64JV
=2bYD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: