3 ms·
It just goes to show that openness is more agile - if your code is open source then it can be repurposed quickly, by the people that need it _now_, to provide t
by AndrewDucker 14y ago
It just goes to show that openness is more agile - if your code is open source then it can be repurposed quickly, by the people that need it _now_, to provide the results they want.
Whereas if your code is a massive blob then your developers are the bottleneck to any new functionality or usage.
If your code is your product, then that's manageable. But when your product is the hardware, and the code is there purely to make it functional, then retaining that level of control is counterproductive.
- masklinn 14y ago> It just goes to show that openness is more agile No, that is nowhere in the article or the linked thread. It just goes to show the NVidia guys were overly arrogant morons. > if your code is open source then it can be repurposed quickly, by the people that need it _now_, to provide the results they want. This phrase has no relation with the case at hand.
- einhverfr 14y agoNot really. They may not have seen that support for other chip architectures would be a money maker. They obviously didn't think it would be enough of a money maker to spend money doing it. The case at hand shows that if you have open source drivers though, that you gain access to an army of folks who get paid by other people to further develop your product. Here's where they were wrong (though perhaps not moronically so) and why they missed a huge order.