3 ms·

> It was released when it was ready, rather than from the start. Nope. It was released when they realized we were building something that was going to be compe

> It was released when it was ready, rather than from the start. Nope. It was released when they realized we were building something that was going to be competitive with theirs. It was viewed as better to join forces than do it separately because we were already helping them design the servlet spec. > you seem to be struggling to answer those basic questions I have yet to see a question, just a bunch of ad hominem. You really have some weird personal beef with me. Seek help and support for your anger issues.

rvz 1mo ago
> Nope. It was released when... The rest of the details to this are irrelevant. We already know that it was not open-sourced 'from the start' and as you just admitted, it took a week to get it ready and transition it from closed to open source. So even with your example, it fails your own qualification for a project to "eventually" be made open source. > I have yet to see a question, just a bunch of ad hominem. You really have some weird personal beef with me. Seek help and support for your anger issues. I don't think you even know what an 'ad hominem" is or even realize that you just did one in your own comment as a distraction for not answering a basic question. But I'll remind you about what that question was since you missed it: "Who told you? Nvidia directly?" These are very basic question(s) that you are really struggling to answer. In this entire thread, you could not even give the real reason why Nvidia never would open source their CUDA or nvcc software when you "claimed" to know. So again, Repeat exactly what Nvidia told you right here, given you claim to know the "true" reason or just say "I don't know".
- latchkey 1mo ago
  I answered your question. "you ever ask Nvidia why? i did." The only struggle is your understanding. Maybe english isn't your first language, but that is me saying I asked Nvidia.
  - rvz 1mo ago
    > I answered your question. "you ever ask Nvidia why? i did." No you did not. You are referring to a question that I already answered for you [0]. Your answer was incorrect. >> The correct answer to my question is "No". CUDA or NVCC was never open sourced during its lifetime. > The only struggle is your understanding. Maybe english isn't your first language, but that is me saying I asked Nvidia. Says the person that does not know what an "ad hominem" was nor did you even realize you just did one in a previous reply. The question I am basically asking you is to elaborate on what the true reason was since you claimed to have asked them (Nvidia). If Nvidia gave you their response, It should be very easy to just say it right here word-for-word or paraphrase what they told you then. Many replies later still, you are struggling to even do that. Such as basic question to answer and yet you continue pretending to know the reason when you clearly don't know. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49462622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49462622
    - latchkey 1mo ago
      I don't have to elaborate on it, nor would I as the matter of the discussion was confidential. If you want to ask them and get the answer, go right ahead.

rvz 1mo ago

> Nope. It was released when... The rest of the details to this are irrelevant. We already know that it was not open-sourced 'from the start' and as you just admitted, it took a week to get it ready and transition it from closed to open source. So even with your example, it fails your own qualification for a project to "eventually" be made open source. > I have yet to see a question, just a bunch of ad hominem. You really have some weird personal beef with me. Seek help and support for your anger issues. I don't think you even know what an 'ad hominem" is or even realize that you just did one in your own comment as a distraction for not answering a basic question. But I'll remind you about what that question was since you missed it: "Who told you? Nvidia directly?" These are very basic question(s) that you are really struggling to answer. In this entire thread, you could not even give the real reason why Nvidia never would open source their CUDA or nvcc software when you "claimed" to know. So again, Repeat exactly what Nvidia told you right here, given you claim to know the "true" reason or just say "I don't know".

latchkey 1mo ago
I answered your question. "you ever ask Nvidia why? i did." The only struggle is your understanding. Maybe english isn't your first language, but that is me saying I asked Nvidia.
- rvz 1mo ago
  > I answered your question. "you ever ask Nvidia why? i did." No you did not. You are referring to a question that I already answered for you [0]. Your answer was incorrect. >> The correct answer to my question is "No". CUDA or NVCC was never open sourced during its lifetime. > The only struggle is your understanding. Maybe english isn't your first language, but that is me saying I asked Nvidia. Says the person that does not know what an "ad hominem" was nor did you even realize you just did one in a previous reply. The question I am basically asking you is to elaborate on what the true reason was since you claimed to have asked them (Nvidia). If Nvidia gave you their response, It should be very easy to just say it right here word-for-word or paraphrase what they told you then. Many replies later still, you are struggling to even do that. Such as basic question to answer and yet you continue pretending to know the reason when you clearly don't know. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49462622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49462622
  - latchkey 1mo ago
    I don't have to elaborate on it, nor would I as the matter of the discussion was confidential. If you want to ask them and get the answer, go right ahead.