On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:52:05 -0400 RavenLX <rave...@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
pgp4lF6xxoD9F.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature