[wtallis]

It's also the difference between "using our tools implementing our API on our hardware" vs. "trying to figure out the right thing when every component has a slightly different take on the API spec and the applications using the API make mistakes that we have to try to correct for with unreliable heuristics". Developers in the scientific computing world care about correctness a lot more than game developers working under unrealistic deadlines and with no commitment to long-term maintenance.

[sandGorgon]

that doesnt make sense to me. If the driver works and does not crash the operating system (kernel panic FTW), that's good enough at this point.

nVidia uses CUDA or OpenGL - so its not quite the question of proprietary API.

At this point, I'm not worried about "framerate on my linux box isnt as good as windows".. its more "it works...".

[wtallis]

An OpenGL driver capable of running most commercial games is horrifically more complex than a CUDA driver. An OpenGL driver that merely works according to spec is useless in practice. To achieve any practicality for non-trivial use cases an OpenGL driver has to take an attitude of "do what I mean, not what I say", much like web browsers and Windows' backwards compatibility. CUDA doesn't have those problems. NVidia never has to deal with developers complaining that their broken code worked fine on some other vendor's platform. They don't have to worry about programs relying on some esoteric decades-old feature that NVidia doesn't care about but had to implement anyways for standards compliance. And since CUDA is operating in the professional segment of the market, they can take their time when it comes to compatibility with bleeding-edge versions of other OS components.

[p0nce]

Also compute API makes a lot more sense than OpenGL, with an understandable mapping to actual GPU resources.