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([EMAIL PROTECTED] , 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
