I don't get why IHVs hide their tools within layers of security and identity validation steps, that then don't work as intended and prevent developers from using those tools. What are they trying to protect?
On the other hand, AMD's approach is so refreshing.
@castano My assumption is that devrel folks have a hard time showing impact for career progression, and tracking all relationships in this way allows them to show value to superiors.
Until eventually we all stop using VTune as soon as someone writes something vaguely superior that can just be run like a standard portable app, and then they panic.
@castano I especially don't get it because
a) the only group you're really trying to hide things from is your competitors, but the major ones spend substantial effort on competitor analysis anyhow and will figure out what you're doing soon after something is out regardless
b) design cycles are long enough that by the time HW is actually out, both you and your competition are well into designing the next iteration
@castano So much this, but which facet of "AMD's approach" are you praising? I'm mostly observing from the perspective of compute workloads on Linux, where AMD consumers are too often left to their own devices.
@amonakov AMD's approach is significantly more open, with all their tools easily available for download without the need for registration. Most of them also have source code available.
The quality of the tools could certainly be better. I can't speak about Linux support in particular and I wouldn't be surprised if it's lacking, but the openness and accessibility is unparalleled.
@castano the theory is that the tools, when decompiled, could reveal internal trade secrets, and you don't get to claim trade secrets without strong identity protection
Add comment