Probably, AMD was only doing open source because Nvidia wasn't. Now that it is no longer as advantageous since Nvidia is open sourcing (still no nvcc !!!), it is less advantageous. It's typical capitalism conservative terminal brain rotting cancer. They don't do the right thing unless it is profitable to do so. There is no big picture or ethics; just criminals and quarterly reports.

[–] vikingtons@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

...or it was found to violate CUDA's EULA and taken down as a precaution https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/nvidia-bans-using-translation-layers-for-cuda-software-to-run-on-other-chips-new-restriction-apparently-targets-zluda-and-some-chinese-gpu-makers

[–] hellofriend@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What's stopping Windows from banning WINE if this is the case?

[–] vikingtons@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I suppose if zluda interpreting native cuda code on other IHV platforms is "illegal", whereas HIP can legally be used to translate CUDA to ROCm at runtime, I would equate WINE to HIP, as it translates Windows API calls to POSIX for linux and Unix systems.

I'm not sure Microsoft have a leg to stand on with a move like this given their legal troubles in the past around becoming a monopoly. Maybe they don't see as much threat given the low share of linux and unix (including mac) desktops

There's still a bit of friction around actually leveraging WINE on non-Windows systems, with Proton being a relatively recent outlier as it offers you a mostly plug and play experience via steam, lutris and others.

For nvidia, zluda can allow other IHVs with significantly cheaper DC solutions to undercut them with no friction whatsoever.