gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x56ae1100.hantslug.org.uk.2204': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Fri Dec 15 17:55:26 2006 GMT
gpg: using DSA key 019AD0D8166C4BF0
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
On Friday 15 December 2006 16:06, Jim Kissel wrote:
>
> I have heard than the hardware manufacturers cannot release the source
> code because:
> a) They don't own all the IP associated with the code
> b) Their competitors could gain an understanding of the workings of the
> hardware if they had access to the driver source code
>
> I can't vouch for the truth or falseness of either of these statements.
I believe that (a) is probably right quite often. They have either licenced or
stolen code, and don't want to go to the effort of getting their upsteam
supplier to release code or admit that they steal code.
(b) is often repeated, but I hardly think there isn't anything in the ATI
chipset that nVidia don't know about, and vica-versa. Seeing ATI code is
hardly going to improve a nVidia graphics driver... I think this is something
that the top suits may believe, but in practice it's probably a red-herring.
(c) They don't want world+dog to know how crap their code is. They can't say
this publically but I'm sure there is some truth to it. This also related to
(a) when the code is of dubious origin.
(d) It costs money to clear everything through legal approval, and it won't
bring enough extra sales to offset the cost.
(e) Companies don't understand. Suited executive often have no clue, we all
are aware of the stupid decisions companies make. We all know it's stupid,
and we are usually proved right long after the execs have move on to bonuses
new.
Me bitter and cynical - never...!
--
Adam Trickett
Overton, HANTS, UK
My organ doesn't work properly and emits strange burning smells
-- seen on Usenet
