First of all, i replied to the generalization "Open source fails at many real world tasks. Choose the tool best suited to solve the problem you want solved, regardless of religious beliefs" not just about CUDA. Open source might fail at tasks but it isn't pushed or chosen because of religion. It has nothing to do with religion. In fact...
> OP complains people use CUDA instead of a non-existent open source solution. That's religion.
...that isn't religion either. The person you replied to complains because CUDA not only is closed source but also is vendor locked to Nvidia both of which have a ton of issues inherent to being vendor locked and closed source software, largely around control - the complaint comes from these issues. These issues for many can either be showstoppers or just make them look and wish and push for alternatives and they come from practical concerns, not out of religious issues.
> And a significant amount of open source solutions are the result of reverse engineering. It's a perfectly reasonable and time tested method to replace proprietary solutions.
It is not reasonable at all, it is the last-ditch effort when nothing else seems to do, can be a tremendous waste of time and telling people "So fix it" when doing that would require reverse engineering is practically the same as telling them to shut up and IMO can't even be taken seriously as anything else than that.
The proper way to fix something is to have access to the source code.
And again to be clear:
> People use CUDA for actual practical issues. If someone makes a cross platform open source solution that solves those issues people will try it.
The "actual practical issues" i mentioned have nothing to do with CUDA or any issues they might use with CUDA or any other closed source (or not) technology. The "actual practical issues" i mentioned are about the issues inherent to closed source technologies in general - like fixing any potential issues one might have and being under the control of the vendor of those technologies.
These are all widely known and talked about issues, it might be a good idea to not dismiss them.
> OP complains people use CUDA instead of a non-existent open source solution. That's religion.
...that isn't religion either. The person you replied to complains because CUDA not only is closed source but also is vendor locked to Nvidia both of which have a ton of issues inherent to being vendor locked and closed source software, largely around control - the complaint comes from these issues. These issues for many can either be showstoppers or just make them look and wish and push for alternatives and they come from practical concerns, not out of religious issues.
> And a significant amount of open source solutions are the result of reverse engineering. It's a perfectly reasonable and time tested method to replace proprietary solutions.
It is not reasonable at all, it is the last-ditch effort when nothing else seems to do, can be a tremendous waste of time and telling people "So fix it" when doing that would require reverse engineering is practically the same as telling them to shut up and IMO can't even be taken seriously as anything else than that.
The proper way to fix something is to have access to the source code.
And again to be clear:
> People use CUDA for actual practical issues. If someone makes a cross platform open source solution that solves those issues people will try it.
The "actual practical issues" i mentioned have nothing to do with CUDA or any issues they might use with CUDA or any other closed source (or not) technology. The "actual practical issues" i mentioned are about the issues inherent to closed source technologies in general - like fixing any potential issues one might have and being under the control of the vendor of those technologies.
These are all widely known and talked about issues, it might be a good idea to not dismiss them.