ROCm isn’t a USP of the Linux platform it’s vendor locked. It provides no competitive advantage to Linux, not to mention that that entire concept is a bitty la

ROCm isn’t a USP of the Linux platform it’s vendor locked. It provides no competitive advantage to Linux, not to mention that that entire concept is a bitty laughable as far as FOSS/OS goes. I don’t understand why AMD seems adamant at not wanting to be a player in the GPU compute market. Close to Metal was aborted. OpenCL was abandoned. HSA never got off the ground. ROCm made every technical decision possible to ensure it won’t be adopted. Can’t get GPUs that could run it, can’t ship a product to customers because good luck buying the datacenter GPUs from AMD the MI100 is unavailable for purchase unless you make a special order and even then apparently AMD doesn’t want anyone to actually buy it, can’t really find GPU cloud instances that run it on any of the major providers. So what exactly is it? It’s been 5 years and if you want today to develop anything on the platform you have to build a desktop computer, find overpriced hardware on the second hand market pay a premium for it, hope that AMD won’t deprecate it within months like they did with GCN 2/3 without even a heads up notice all so you can develop something that only you can run with no future compatibility or interoperability. If this is the right tool for the job then the job is wrong.