Maxime, your point it totally legitimate. My approach is less about philosophy and more about practicality. We picked the foss toolchain instead of the goolf toolchain because of its more collaborative nature and scheduled release. The problem is that if we now start using a goolfc toolchain, we could not get the benefit of reusing most of the software built with foss since we build with minimal toolchains. Hence I proposed of starting a fosscuda toolchain that is aligned with the foss release. That's it.
-- Davide Vanzo, PhD Application Developer Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE) Vanderbilt University - Hill Center 201 (615)-875-9137 www.accre.vanderbilt.edu On Mar 2 2017, at 5:30 pm, Maxime Boissonneault <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I've seen a couple emails about CUDA recently, and I was a bit surprised to see work done about FOSS and CUDA. Isn't the whole point of FOSS to be free and open source ? CUDA is not open source. Won't die-hard fan of FOSS object to having CUDA in a FOSS toolchain ? I personally don't really care, I just want the best performance for my users (which is why we don't go with FOSS in the first place, since MKL gives better performances than OpenBLAS). I just thought I'ld raise the question. -- --------------------------------- Maxime Boissonneault Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de Calcul Québec Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada Instructeur Software Carpentry Ph. D. en physique
