I think there is a thin line. The ACX100, for example, uses the drivers to upload a binary firmware file to the ARM processor on the wireless card. IMHO, this binary doesn't need to be opensource - it can contain any tricks that the vendor wants. The driver that interacts with the OS should be opensource - that way we get fast support for new kernels, bugfixes at that level, etc. The vendor wins because things are still obfusicated - but they now have only a single card-specific binary to bugfix their hardware bugs on - and the OS specific driver just loads that image.
Cheers Brad > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Bayley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Upgrading my PC, any pointers? > > > Force the card vendors to open source thier drivers and they'll take > their IP and stick it back into hardware so that what you buy is what > you get - warts and all - and the ability to update/bug fix > later (for > free) dissapears............ > > BTW didn't ATI used to do OS drivers ? with what model card > did that stop ? > > /chris > > Brad Beveridge wrote: > > >>Perhaps the > >>details necessary to open the driver would give away too much > >>about their hardware details. If that is the case then they > >>have a legitimate concern. graphics chips are a very > >>competitive market. > >> > >> > >> > >Maybe - but I'd bet every new card that comes out gets > bought up by the > >other guy & completely pulled apart in a lab. Drivers might > make that > >process easier. It's kinda like copy protection - it's hard > to crack, > >but people still do it. I think the drivers for all > hardware should be > >open - because selling the drivers isn't a business model for the HW > >vendors. > > > >Brad > > > > > > > >
