I've had a massive faff with ROCm, and on my main workstation have been compelled to use a different distro that makes things easier. Definite preference for option 2.
Previous job was academic research, everything was CUDA. Now I'm in industrial R&D, and I run into whatever my customers want me to use, which has been a mixture of CUDA and ROCm. With some practice and tinkering, CUDA can be made to play nicely. Sam On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:27, Thomas Schiex <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm a computer scientist working in AI and structural biology. I'm sorry > to say that CUDA has slowly invaded a lot of our scientific pipelines, > for Deep learning, convex optimization and molecular simulations. > > I just could not vote for option 2 even if option 1 is tolerable (I'm > using it). > > Le 21/05/2021 à 15:35, Julien Puydt a écrit : > > Le vendredi 21 mai 2021 à 04:40 +0000, M. Zhou a écrit : > >> Q: How far should Debian go along the way for supporting hardware > >> acceleration solutions like CUDA? > >> > >> Choice 1: this game belongs to the big companies. we should offload > >> such burden to third-party providers such as Anaconda. > >> Choice 2: we may try to provide what the users need. > >> Choice 3: <write down yours> > > I'm not a user of anything like it (as far as I know...), but it's > > Debian's mission to make useful software available : choice 2. > > > > JP > > > >
