5 ms·

Why is it not compulsory to release the source code from day 1? If you're making a driver it's because you're selling hardware, that's where your profit and va

by treyd 3y ago

Why is it not compulsory to release the source code from day 1? If you're making a driver it's because you're selling hardware, that's where your profit and value is. Commingling the two leads to perverse incentives and conflicts of interest.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
For GPUs the driver is mostly a gigantic list of performance hacks for different software packages. That might be an asset to competitors. But I think NVidia would be perfectly fine financially if they gave this out.
- mey 3y ago
  Considering Intel Arc's launch, it would've been a massive boon to them to have this information. Granted this information is likely highly customized to Nvidia architecture so it may be of little use, but Arc made it very apparent exactly how many games just barely work at all. You can also see that in the excellent Dolphin emulator team write ups.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Intel's woes with ARC stem from the fact their silicon straight up doesn't support anything below DX12, so they have to rely on software emulation for them. Nvidia and AMD both support DX versions below DX12 in their silicon, they don't have to emulate anything which means better performance. Even if Intel had access to Nvidia and AMD's driver source codes, none of it would be useful because they don't have the silicon.
- shmerl 3y ago
  Note how it's much shorter for Vulkan: * https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/util/00-radv-defaults.conf https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/uti... * https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/util/00-mesa-defaults.conf https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/uti...
- vel0city 3y ago
  I'd actually say nvidia wouldn't be perfectly fine giving this out. Their drivers are a big part of the secret sauce that makes things like CUDA so dominant. Nvidia's biggest product is CUDA.
DigitallyFidget 3y ago
Because if I can rewrite my printer to not intentionally be a total piece of shit, the company gets less money by intentionally expiring or wasting ink, DRM locking ink cartridge brands, or "service needed" bricking the device after a period of time. There's also the matter of lawsuits. If you get a device, they're not supporting updates, so you go get a 3rd party update and it ruins the device, the RMA costs the manufacture, but worse, the customer(s) may file a (class action) lawsuit against the company over the problem of being unable to find the official firmware/driver updates, causing people to ruin their hardware, get RMA rejections, or not even being aware of an RMA process and simply buying another one. Personally, I'd rather there be open source drivers/firmware for everything from day one, but to look at both sides, I fully understand the liability and why that's something that only exists in the hobbiest world.
- saghm 3y ago
  >> Why is it not compulsory to release the source code from day 1? If you're making a driver it's because you're selling hardware, that's where your profit and value is. Commingling the two leads to perverse incentives and conflicts of interest. > Because if I can rewrite my printer to not intentionally be a total piece of shit, the company gets less money by intentionally expiring or wasting ink, DRM locking ink cartridge brands, or "service needed" bricking the device after a period of time. That sounds exactly like the "perverse incentives and conflicts of interest" that the parent comment mentioned. I don't think they're asking why it isn't required now, but why it _shouldn't_ be required. What you're saying sounds more compelling as an argument in favor of what they propose, not in favor of the status quo.
- _chu1 3y ago
  The company can create a way to void the warranty or not take responsibility and leave it to you if 3rd party modifications or drivers are used, but not outright prevent them and make them a pain to the users. Something like how Android ROMs and rooting used to be.
- treyd 3y ago
  > Because if I can rewrite my printer to not intentionally be a total piece of shit, the company gets less money by intentionally expiring or wasting ink, DRM locking ink cartridge brands, or "service needed" bricking the device after a period of time. This is exactly the kind of perverse incentives that I'm talking about though. And this kind of misbehavior happens way more than someone installing a 3rd party update that bricks someone's device.
Cheetah26 3y ago
I think the ideal solution here would be if companies were required to ship an open source driver, and then optionally offer a proprietary driver for an extra fee which includes whatever 'special sauce' (as another comment put it) that they don't want to release. The example I'm thinking of is Nvidia's newer GPUs and DLSS. The hardware would come with open drivers, but if you want the upscaling that's an additional fee. While maintaining additional drivers is more work for companies, I think they'd actually benefit from this because it could be a recurring revenue stream for older hardware.

by treyd 3y ago

teaearlgraycold 3y ago

For GPUs the driver is mostly a gigantic list of performance hacks for different software packages. That might be an asset to competitors. But I think NVidia would be perfectly fine financially if they gave this out.

mey 3y ago
Considering Intel Arc's launch, it would've been a massive boon to them to have this information. Granted this information is likely highly customized to Nvidia architecture so it may be of little use, but Arc made it very apparent exactly how many games just barely work at all. You can also see that in the excellent Dolphin emulator team write ups.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Intel's woes with ARC stem from the fact their silicon straight up doesn't support anything below DX12, so they have to rely on software emulation for them. Nvidia and AMD both support DX versions below DX12 in their silicon, they don't have to emulate anything which means better performance. Even if Intel had access to Nvidia and AMD's driver source codes, none of it would be useful because they don't have the silicon.
shmerl 3y ago
Note how it's much shorter for Vulkan: * https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/util/00-radv-defaults.conf https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/uti... * https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/util/00-mesa-defaults.conf https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/blob/main/src/uti...
vel0city 3y ago
I'd actually say nvidia wouldn't be perfectly fine giving this out. Their drivers are a big part of the secret sauce that makes things like CUDA so dominant. Nvidia's biggest product is CUDA.

DigitallyFidget 3y ago

Because if I can rewrite my printer to not intentionally be a total piece of shit, the company gets less money by intentionally expiring or wasting ink, DRM locking ink cartridge brands, or "service needed" bricking the device after a period of time. There's also the matter of lawsuits. If you get a device, they're not supporting updates, so you go get a 3rd party update and it ruins the device, the RMA costs the manufacture, but worse, the customer(s) may file a (class action) lawsuit against the company over the problem of being unable to find the official firmware/driver updates, causing people to ruin their hardware, get RMA rejections, or not even being aware of an RMA process and simply buying another one. Personally, I'd rather there be open source drivers/firmware for everything from day one, but to look at both sides, I fully understand the liability and why that's something that only exists in the hobbiest world.

saghm 3y ago
>> Why is it not compulsory to release the source code from day 1? If you're making a driver it's because you're selling hardware, that's where your profit and value is. Commingling the two leads to perverse incentives and conflicts of interest. > Because if I can rewrite my printer to not intentionally be a total piece of shit, the company gets less money by intentionally expiring or wasting ink, DRM locking ink cartridge brands, or "service needed" bricking the device after a period of time. That sounds exactly like the "perverse incentives and conflicts of interest" that the parent comment mentioned. I don't think they're asking why it isn't required now, but why it _shouldn't_ be required. What you're saying sounds more compelling as an argument in favor of what they propose, not in favor of the status quo.
_chu1 3y ago
The company can create a way to void the warranty or not take responsibility and leave it to you if 3rd party modifications or drivers are used, but not outright prevent them and make them a pain to the users. Something like how Android ROMs and rooting used to be.
treyd 3y ago
> Because if I can rewrite my printer to not intentionally be a total piece of shit, the company gets less money by intentionally expiring or wasting ink, DRM locking ink cartridge brands, or "service needed" bricking the device after a period of time. This is exactly the kind of perverse incentives that I'm talking about though. And this kind of misbehavior happens way more than someone installing a 3rd party update that bricks someone's device.

Cheetah26 3y ago

I think the ideal solution here would be if companies were required to ship an open source driver, and then optionally offer a proprietary driver for an extra fee which includes whatever 'special sauce' (as another comment put it) that they don't want to release. The example I'm thinking of is Nvidia's newer GPUs and DLSS. The hardware would come with open drivers, but if you want the upscaling that's an additional fee. While maintaining additional drivers is more work for companies, I think they'd actually benefit from this because it could be a recurring revenue stream for older hardware.