| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Binary-only kernel modules may be bannedBinary-only kernel modules may be bannedPosted Dec 14, 2006 17:52 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: Binary-only kernel modules may be banned by drag Parent article: Binary-only kernel modules may be banned
I believe that the "we don't own all the source" is a smoke screen. OK graphics companies, if that's true then just release the source you DO own! Let's see if the community can fill in the missing bits (I'd bet money that it can).
No, I am convinced that the real reason that manufacturers don't want to open the specs is because then all their corner-cutting will be exposed for all to see. Graphics technology tends to hover at 110% of semiconductor technology:
http://techreport.com/etc/2001q4/radeon-q3/index.x?pg=1
Heck, I reluctantly wrote some "optimizations" for SuperMac ThunderII and Thunder/24 drivers in 1993 to cheat on Ziff-Davis benchmarks (look closely at those round-corner rectangles as they blit by; it was the second-to-last time I coded something against my morals). Companies have been pulling these shenanigans since day one.
The problem is, the market is set up so that companies are required to cheat like this. So it's 13 FPS slower, so what? You can't see the difference between 122 and 135 FPS! Well, that's how Anandtech readers choose what to buy. If you're 5% slower, you lose 40% of your sales.
I really hope that open source will encourage customers to not be so fickle and choose cards based based on more than absolute frame rate and artificial benchmarks.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||