3 ms·

> It’s worse.... > It’s Linux only so no Mac, Windows or WSL. I don't see really a problem here. You want Office or Photoshop? It runs on Mac and Windows only

> It’s worse.... > It’s Linux only so no Mac, Windows or WSL. I don't see really a problem here. You want Office or Photoshop? It runs on Mac and Windows only, so you better get one. You want ROCm? Get Linux for exactly the same reason.

sorenjan 6y ago
It's a big problem if you want to use GPGPU in a product shipped to customers, or if you want to do some GPU programming on your own computer in your free time. Keep in mind that not only is it Linux only, it doesn't work on consumer hardware either.
- vetinari 6y ago
  > It's a big problem if you want to use GPGPU in a product shipped to customers, So ship linux version and let the customers decide whether they want it or not. If you are doing server product, it is even handy; just ship docker image or docker-compose/set of k8s pods, if it needs them. > or if you want to do some GPU programming on your own computer in your free time. You can install Linux very easily; it's not that it is some huge expense. > it doesn't work on consumer hardware either. It does, just not on the current gen one or even currently purchasable one. I agree, this is a problem.
  - sorenjan 6y ago
    > So ship linux version and let the customers decide whether they want it or not. What if I want to use GPGPU in Photoshop, or a game with more than two users? Or really anything aimed at consumers? > If you are doing server product That's irrelevant, server products can choose their own hardware and OS. > You can install Linux very easily "For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem" Also, their main competitor with a huge market lead have this: https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-installation-guide-microsoft-windows/index.html https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-installation-guide-microso... > It does, just not on the current gen one or even currently purchasable one. I agree, this is a problem. Only on old hardware, and you can't expect users' computers to be compatible. In fact, you should expect users' copmuters to be incompatible. That's like saying consumer hardware support GLIDE.
    - vetinari 6y ago
      > What if I want to use GPGPU in Photoshop, or a game with more than two users? Or really anything aimed at consumers? Then use API supported on your target platform. It's not ROCm then. Maybe Vulcan Compute/DirectCompute/Metal Compute? > That's irrelevant, server products can choose their own hardware and OS. It is relevant for ROCm. > > You can install Linux very easily > "For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem" I'm quite surprised to see comparisons ad absurdum after suggesting to use proper tool for a job. Installing a suitable operating system - for a supposed hacker - is a convoluted, nonsensical action nowadays? > Only on old hardware, and you can't expect users' computers to be compatible. In fact, you should expect users' copmuters to be incompatible. That's like saying consumer hardware support GLIDE. Vega is not that old; the problem is that is not not procurable anymore, which, if you read my comment again, I agreed that it is a problem.
      - kortex 6y ago
        We all started as noobs once. A sizeable market of GPGPU is academics who don't yet have their nix chops. Had to walk an undergrad through basic git branching the other day.
        vetinari 6y ago
        I understand, but look at from another POV: ROCm is an USP of the Linux platform. Windows has its own USPs (DirectX or Office, for example), MacOS the same (iOS development, for example). Why should Linux platform give up its competitive advantages against others? It would only diminish the reasons for running it. The other platforms won't do the same -- and nobody is bothered by that. In fact, it is generally considered to be an advantage of platform and reasons for getting it. And it's not like getting Linux to run could be a significant expense (like purchasing an Apple computer is for many) or you need to get a license (like getting Windows). You can do it for free, and you will only learn something from it. I've got my nix chops in the early '90 exactly this way: I wanted 32-bit flat-memory C compiler, didn't have the money for Watcom and associated DOS-extenders and djgpp wasn't a thing yet (or I didn't know about it yet). So I've got Slackware at home, as well as access to DG-UX at uni. It was different, I had to learn something, but ultimately, I'm glad I did.
dogma1138 6y ago
No I don’t want ROCm I want GPGPU, which is why the entire planet is running CUDA. Every decision AMD made with ROCm seems to boil down too “i never want to be actually competitive with CUDA”. Everything from being Linux only and yes that’s is a huge huge huge limitation because most people don’t want ROCm but many would like Photoshop or Premier or Blender being able to use it. Especially with the OpenCL issues AMD has.... Through them not supporting their own hardware to other mind boggling decisions like the fact that ROCm binaries are hardware specific so you have no guarantee of interoperability and worse no guarantee for future compatibility and in fact it does break. The point is that I can take a 6 years old CUDA binary and run it today still on everything form an embedded system through a high end server, it would maintain its compatibility across multiple generations of GPU hardware, multi operating systems and multiple CPU architectures. And if you can’t understand why that is not only valuable but more or less mandatory for every GPGPU application you would ever ship to customers, perhaps you should stick to photoshop. AMD is a joke in this space and they are very much actively continuing in making themselves one with every decision they make. It’s not that they’ve abandoned ROCm is that it’s entire existence is telegraphing “Don't take use seriously, because we don’t”.

sorenjan 6y ago

It's a big problem if you want to use GPGPU in a product shipped to customers, or if you want to do some GPU programming on your own computer in your free time. Keep in mind that not only is it Linux only, it doesn't work on consumer hardware either.

vetinari 6y ago
> It's a big problem if you want to use GPGPU in a product shipped to customers, So ship linux version and let the customers decide whether they want it or not. If you are doing server product, it is even handy; just ship docker image or docker-compose/set of k8s pods, if it needs them. > or if you want to do some GPU programming on your own computer in your free time. You can install Linux very easily; it's not that it is some huge expense. > it doesn't work on consumer hardware either. It does, just not on the current gen one or even currently purchasable one. I agree, this is a problem.
- sorenjan 6y ago
  > So ship linux version and let the customers decide whether they want it or not. What if I want to use GPGPU in Photoshop, or a game with more than two users? Or really anything aimed at consumers? > If you are doing server product That's irrelevant, server products can choose their own hardware and OS. > You can install Linux very easily "For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem" Also, their main competitor with a huge market lead have this: https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-installation-guide-microsoft-windows/index.html https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-installation-guide-microso... > It does, just not on the current gen one or even currently purchasable one. I agree, this is a problem. Only on old hardware, and you can't expect users' computers to be compatible. In fact, you should expect users' copmuters to be incompatible. That's like saying consumer hardware support GLIDE.
  - vetinari 6y ago
    > What if I want to use GPGPU in Photoshop, or a game with more than two users? Or really anything aimed at consumers? Then use API supported on your target platform. It's not ROCm then. Maybe Vulcan Compute/DirectCompute/Metal Compute? > That's irrelevant, server products can choose their own hardware and OS. It is relevant for ROCm. > > You can install Linux very easily > "For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem" I'm quite surprised to see comparisons ad absurdum after suggesting to use proper tool for a job. Installing a suitable operating system - for a supposed hacker - is a convoluted, nonsensical action nowadays? > Only on old hardware, and you can't expect users' computers to be compatible. In fact, you should expect users' copmuters to be incompatible. That's like saying consumer hardware support GLIDE. Vega is not that old; the problem is that is not not procurable anymore, which, if you read my comment again, I agreed that it is a problem.
    - kortex 6y ago
      We all started as noobs once. A sizeable market of GPGPU is academics who don't yet have their nix chops. Had to walk an undergrad through basic git branching the other day.
      - vetinari 6y ago
        I understand, but look at from another POV: ROCm is an USP of the Linux platform. Windows has its own USPs (DirectX or Office, for example), MacOS the same (iOS development, for example). Why should Linux platform give up its competitive advantages against others? It would only diminish the reasons for running it. The other platforms won't do the same -- and nobody is bothered by that. In fact, it is generally considered to be an advantage of platform and reasons for getting it. And it's not like getting Linux to run could be a significant expense (like purchasing an Apple computer is for many) or you need to get a license (like getting Windows). You can do it for free, and you will only learn something from it. I've got my nix chops in the early '90 exactly this way: I wanted 32-bit flat-memory C compiler, didn't have the money for Watcom and associated DOS-extenders and djgpp wasn't a thing yet (or I didn't know about it yet). So I've got Slackware at home, as well as access to DG-UX at uni. It was different, I had to learn something, but ultimately, I'm glad I did.

dogma1138 6y ago

No I don’t want ROCm I want GPGPU, which is why the entire planet is running CUDA. Every decision AMD made with ROCm seems to boil down too “i never want to be actually competitive with CUDA”. Everything from being Linux only and yes that’s is a huge huge huge limitation because most people don’t want ROCm but many would like Photoshop or Premier or Blender being able to use it. Especially with the OpenCL issues AMD has.... Through them not supporting their own hardware to other mind boggling decisions like the fact that ROCm binaries are hardware specific so you have no guarantee of interoperability and worse no guarantee for future compatibility and in fact it does break. The point is that I can take a 6 years old CUDA binary and run it today still on everything form an embedded system through a high end server, it would maintain its compatibility across multiple generations of GPU hardware, multi operating systems and multiple CPU architectures. And if you can’t understand why that is not only valuable but more or less mandatory for every GPGPU application you would ever ship to customers, perhaps you should stick to photoshop. AMD is a joke in this space and they are very much actively continuing in making themselves one with every decision they make. It’s not that they’ve abandoned ROCm is that it’s entire existence is telegraphing “Don't take use seriously, because we don’t”.