[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/07/07]
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:11:20AM +1200, Guy Thornley wrote: > > It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification" > > process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a boatload of > > money for your driver to be certified, or we'll make it look like your > > software is shonky so people will go buy hardware from someone else". > > Personally, I suspect something slightly more malevolent: content > protection. I will *not* be surprised if, sometime in the future, you will > not be able to use copy-protected content (you know, all that protected WMA > stuff, HD-DVD, etc) unless all the drivers in the driver chain are > "certified". > > Why? So it is much harder to make a driver that spits out the raw > unencrypted (or whatever) content. I thought this hate already existed. Certainly the default drivers for Creative cards with high quality digital out refuse to produce digital out when sourced from "encrypted" sources and the like. You know, because who wants high quality output from high quality sources. Isn't high quality on one end enough? More is just redundant. I think this hatefulness is already on the march, and will be deployed in addition to the "Logo Certification" hatefulness. Maybe you are right that they will (already?) relate to each other in the manner you suggest. In the old days when I would run windows, my video card vendor always provided two driver options: the logo certified one, and the one with fewer bugs. I'm sure the program works the same way now. -joshThere's stuff above here
Generated at 10:01 on 07 Jul 2006 by mariachi 0.52