3 ms·
The larger problem is that drivers are written by hardware manufacturers. This is the perverse incentive: driver optimizations present competitive value to man
by thomastjeffery 3y ago
The larger problem is that drivers are written by hardware manufacturers.
This is the perverse incentive: driver optimizations present competitive value to manufacturers, so manufacturers keep drivers secret in order to monopolize that value.
The problem is that by monopolizing their driver, the manufacturer also monopolizes the responsibility of driver creation, compatibility, security, and maintenance. This doesn't just prevent competition from other manufacturers: it prevents collaboration with anyone else.
There is nothing to incentivize a manufacturer to actually uphold the responsibility that they have monopolized. It's actually the opposite: monopolized responsibility is an opportunity to implement planned obselescence.
The purpose of copyright and patent monopoly is to incentivize knowledge sharing. In this case, the opposite is true. If we want drivers to be maintainable, then we have 2 options:
1. Require all drivers to be open source.
2. Break up the vertical integration of in-house driver development.
I vote we do both.
- robertlagrant 3y agoHow would 2 work? I make some hardware, but have to hope that someone else will start a company to create a driver for it?
- dylan604 3y agoYeah, that doesn't make sense. "We're pleased to announce the release of our amazing new hardware that we can't wait to see what people will do with it. No, really. Please, someone do something with it. We're not allowed to do anything other than make it. Please, justify our existence. However, if someone says the hardware is inadequate, that would just be their excuse for making inadequate software, and in no way reflects the true potential of the device"
- thomastjeffery 3y agoThere is no need to wait until release. Go ahead and publish a hardware spec during development. Go ahead and commission a driver development company, and work closely with them. The only change is that driver development is allowed to be a competitive market.
- dylan604 3y agoYeah, I've been there done that. Got the bleeding edge cuts and scars from it. Worked closely with a hardware decoder's published specs provided by the manufacture. We made files that were within published specs and delivered to them for testing. The hardware choked. We had to keep adjusting until performance was acceptable. Published specs were never corrected to reflect true abilities. Hence my part of the comment about it being the fault of software's fault and not the hardware.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoI wasn't asking you personally to take over. Nothing about the situation you described is any different in the status quo.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoYes. It would work the same way it works internally: create a hardware spec, and answer questions from driver devs. The only difference is that driver devs aren't working exclusively for the manufacturer. If you want an example of third-party driver development, just take one look at Linux.
- _ugfj 3y agoMultiple someones, in fact. Why not? Someone makes a faster driver, another makes say a more power efficient one so the card is quieter. And yes it vould cost money. You could compete on this thing. Once upon a time there were competing commercial operation systems. Can't see why GPU drivers couldn't compete.