←back to thread

387 points pedro84 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
thomastjeffery ◴[] No.14861166[source]
Why does Broadcom insist on proprietary drivers?

How could it possibly be detrimental for Broadcom to have free software drivers?

This article is a poignant example that it is detrimental for them to continue to keep their drivers proprietary.

replies(6): >>14861174 #>>14861519 #>>14862058 #>>14863796 #>>14867469 #>>14871284 #
whowouldathunk ◴[] No.14861174[source]
The drivers are probably pretty complicated and thus valuable IP.
replies(2): >>14861236 #>>14867384 #
thomastjeffery ◴[] No.14861236[source]
I don't buy that.

Every wifi chipset has working drivers; therefore there is little to no value in Broadcom's driver as "IP".

Contrast that to the value of having a free driver that can receive security patches from anyone at any time.

replies(6): >>14861326 #>>14861646 #>>14862004 #>>14862013 #>>14862510 #>>14863716 #
johncolanduoni ◴[] No.14861326[source]
Every GPU has working drivers, but optimizations within them can make huge differences in performance on the same hardware.
replies(3): >>14861387 #>>14861468 #>>14861658 #
monocasa ◴[] No.14861468[source]
The driver 'optimizations' in GPUs tend to boil down to hand written replacements for unoptimal/broken shaders and API call sequences on a per application basis.

I expect a network card to not 'interpret' my traffic in a similar way.

replies(2): >>14861597 #>>14861620 #
1. vvanders ◴[] No.14861597[source]
As someone who spent a ton of time in this space(working with most mobile GPU vendors from Android E to L) you're talking about things just at the surface.

The way the drivers + backing architecture are built contains tons of IP and things that they would very much not want their competitors seeing.

Our team built our reputation and relationship on keeping that data separate and confidential despite working with just about every vendor out there.