10 ms·

Impressive if true. Unfortunately not open source and scarce on exact details on how it works Edit: not sure why I just sort of expect projects to be open sour

by _lvbh 2y ago

Impressive if true. Unfortunately not open source and scarce on exact details on how it works Edit: not sure why I just sort of expect projects to be open source or at least source available these days.

tempaccount420 2y ago
They might be hoping to be acquired by AMD
ipsum2 2y ago
They're using Docusaurus[1] for their website, which is most commonly used with open source projects. https://docusaurus.io/docs https://docusaurus.io/docs
- msond 2y ago
  Actually, we use mkdocs and the excellent material for mkdocs theme: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/ https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/
msond 2y ago
We're going to be publishing more details on later blog posts and documentation about how this works and how we've built it. Yes, we're not open source, however our license is very permissive. It's both in the software distribution and viewable online at https://docs.scale-lang.com/licensing/ https://docs.scale-lang.com/licensing/
- breck 2y ago
  How about trying _Early_ Source? It's open source with a long delay, but paying users get the latest updates. Make the git repo from "today - N years" open source, where N is something like 1 or 2. That way, students can learn on old versions, and when they grow into professionals they can pay for access to the cutting Edge builds. Win win win win ( https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html)
  - msond 2y ago
    We're still thinking about our approach but this is a nice suggestion, thank you. I'm curious, for what reasons are you interested in the source code yourself?
    - mindcrime 2y ago
      I'm not the person you replied to, and I can't speak for them. But I can say that for myself, and a not small number of other people, it's an ideological issue. I simply do not use software that isn't F/OSS - to the greatest extent that that is possible. For me, I might use a VERY small amount of non F/OSS stuff, but it's very hard to get me to adopt something new if it isn't. Now should you make business decisions based on that? Probably not. But while I don't claim to be a representative sample, I am pretty sure the number of people who share my beliefs in this regard is substantially "non zero". shrug
    - atq2119 2y ago
      Not GP, but a guaranteed source availability means users can fix issues themselves in the future if the original provider goes belly-up.
    - breck 2y ago
      > I'm curious, for what reasons are you interested in the source code yourself? I am the founder/editor of PLDB. So I try to do my best to help people "build the next great programming language". We clone the git repos of over 1,000 compilers and interpreters and use cloc to determine what languages the people who are building languages are using. The people who build languages obviously are the experts, so how they go so goes the world. We call this measurement "Foundation Score". A Foundation Score of 100 means 100 other languages uses this language somehow in their primary implementation. It is utterly dominated by open source languages, and the disparity is only getting more extreme. You can see for yourself here: https://pldb.io/lists/explorer.html#columns=rank~name~id~appeared~tags~creators~foundationScore~isOpenSource https://pldb.io/lists/explorer.html#columns=rank~name~id~app... Some that might have become irrelevant have gained a second wind after going open source. But some keep falling further behind. I look at Mathematica, a very powerful and amazing language, and it makes me sad to see so few other language designers using it, and the reason is because its closed source. So they are not doing so hot, and that's a language from one of our world's smartest and most prolific thinkers that's been around for decades. I don't see a way for a new language to catch on nowadays that is not open source.
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
Makes sense to expect this kind of thing to be open source. The whole point of providing improved compatibility is to make people’s lives easier, and open source is usually an important feature to ensure wide compatibility. It also means projects can live on after the creators move to other things, people can submit patches for important features or bug fixes, and generally makes the system much more useful.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I don't find it wrong for someone to attempt to make money back on their time and experience of doing the work. I don't mind people that offer that back as open source either. However, I do have a problem of people expecting everything to be open/free, especially those that then go on a crusade chastising those that do try to make money.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    I'm really trying to keep this about the engineering features of a system rather than moral judgments. Open source systems are simply more flexible and adaptable than proprietary systems, which have their own benefits. In today's world, the engineering value of open source systems is becoming so important that people are looking for other ways to provide for the developers creating these systems. It can be surprising when a project creator builds something in an area that is usually all open source, but they choose a proprietary path. Just look at the problems created by NVIDIA for their use of proprietary software in CUDA and their GPUs. This software is an attempt to fix issues created by proprietary software with another piece of proprietary software, which is if nothing else an interesting decision.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      UNIX wasn't free. Windows wasn't free. It wasn't until some knucklehead came along and did something abnormal and gave away their thing. Bakers don't give away their goods. Mechanics don't typically repair things for free. Builders don't build things for free. Gas stations don't give away gas. Why do we think all software should be free, and then think that those that don't give it away are the abnormal ones?
dheera 2y ago
Also, can I even buy an AMD GPU? I don't see a "buy now" button or a PCIe version anywhere here https://www.amd.com/en/products/accelerators/instinct/mi300/mi300x.html https://www.amd.com/en/products/accelerators/instinct/mi300/... Another big AMD fuckup in my opinion. Nobody is going to drop millions on these things without being able to test them out first. First rule of sales: If you have something for sale, take my money.
- nwiswell 2y ago
  > I don't see a "buy now" button or a PCIe version anywhere here "Buy now" buttons and online shopping carts are not generally how organizations looking to spend serious money on AI buy their hardware. They have a long list of server hardware partners, and odds are you'd already have an existing relationship with one or more of them, and they'd provide a quote. They even go one step further and show off some of their partners' solutions: https://www.amd.com/en/graphics/servers-instinct-deep-learning https://www.amd.com/en/graphics/servers-instinct-deep-learni... FWIW I believe Supermicro and Exxact actually do have web-based shopping carts these days, so maybe you could skip the quotation and buy directly if you were so motivated? Seems kind of weird at this price point. https://www.exxactcorp.com/Exxact-TS4-185328443-E185328443 https://www.exxactcorp.com/Exxact-TS4-185328443-E185328443
  - dheera 2y ago
    ... and that's why AMD is losing. They could break the trend and offer a "buy now" button instead of offering quotes and coffee chats. It's very likely that will kickstart the software snowball with early adopters. Nobody is going to drop millions on an unproven platform. > Seems kind of weird at this price point. Yeah that $234K server is too much for people to do a trial. It has 8xMI300X GPUs along with a bunch of other shit. Give me a single MI300X GPU in PCIe form factor for $20K and I'd very seriously consider. I'm sure there are many people who would help adapt the ecosystem if they were truly available.
    - nwiswell 2y ago
      Why would you be looking to dip your toe into the AMD ecosystem for the first time using an MI300X? It doesn't make any sense. It's not entry level hardware.

by _lvbh 2y ago

tempaccount420 2y ago

They might be hoping to be acquired by AMD

ipsum2 2y ago

They're using Docusaurus[1] for their website, which is most commonly used with open source projects. https://docusaurus.io/docs https://docusaurus.io/docs

msond 2y ago
Actually, we use mkdocs and the excellent material for mkdocs theme: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/ https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/

msond 2y ago

We're going to be publishing more details on later blog posts and documentation about how this works and how we've built it. Yes, we're not open source, however our license is very permissive. It's both in the software distribution and viewable online at https://docs.scale-lang.com/licensing/ https://docs.scale-lang.com/licensing/

breck 2y ago
How about trying _Early_ Source? It's open source with a long delay, but paying users get the latest updates. Make the git repo from "today - N years" open source, where N is something like 1 or 2. That way, students can learn on old versions, and when they grow into professionals they can pay for access to the cutting Edge builds. Win win win win ( https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html https://breckyunits.com/earlySource.html)
- msond 2y ago
  We're still thinking about our approach but this is a nice suggestion, thank you. I'm curious, for what reasons are you interested in the source code yourself?
  - mindcrime 2y ago
    I'm not the person you replied to, and I can't speak for them. But I can say that for myself, and a not small number of other people, it's an ideological issue. I simply do not use software that isn't F/OSS - to the greatest extent that that is possible. For me, I might use a VERY small amount of non F/OSS stuff, but it's very hard to get me to adopt something new if it isn't. Now should you make business decisions based on that? Probably not. But while I don't claim to be a representative sample, I am pretty sure the number of people who share my beliefs in this regard is substantially "non zero". shrug
  - atq2119 2y ago
    Not GP, but a guaranteed source availability means users can fix issues themselves in the future if the original provider goes belly-up.
  - breck 2y ago
    > I'm curious, for what reasons are you interested in the source code yourself? I am the founder/editor of PLDB. So I try to do my best to help people "build the next great programming language". We clone the git repos of over 1,000 compilers and interpreters and use cloc to determine what languages the people who are building languages are using. The people who build languages obviously are the experts, so how they go so goes the world. We call this measurement "Foundation Score". A Foundation Score of 100 means 100 other languages uses this language somehow in their primary implementation. It is utterly dominated by open source languages, and the disparity is only getting more extreme. You can see for yourself here: https://pldb.io/lists/explorer.html#columns=rank~name~id~appeared~tags~creators~foundationScore~isOpenSource https://pldb.io/lists/explorer.html#columns=rank~name~id~app... Some that might have become irrelevant have gained a second wind after going open source. But some keep falling further behind. I look at Mathematica, a very powerful and amazing language, and it makes me sad to see so few other language designers using it, and the reason is because its closed source. So they are not doing so hot, and that's a language from one of our world's smartest and most prolific thinkers that's been around for decades. I don't see a way for a new language to catch on nowadays that is not open source.

TaylorAlexander 2y ago

Makes sense to expect this kind of thing to be open source. The whole point of providing improved compatibility is to make people’s lives easier, and open source is usually an important feature to ensure wide compatibility. It also means projects can live on after the creators move to other things, people can submit patches for important features or bug fixes, and generally makes the system much more useful.

dylan604 2y ago
I don't find it wrong for someone to attempt to make money back on their time and experience of doing the work. I don't mind people that offer that back as open source either. However, I do have a problem of people expecting everything to be open/free, especially those that then go on a crusade chastising those that do try to make money.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  I'm really trying to keep this about the engineering features of a system rather than moral judgments. Open source systems are simply more flexible and adaptable than proprietary systems, which have their own benefits. In today's world, the engineering value of open source systems is becoming so important that people are looking for other ways to provide for the developers creating these systems. It can be surprising when a project creator builds something in an area that is usually all open source, but they choose a proprietary path. Just look at the problems created by NVIDIA for their use of proprietary software in CUDA and their GPUs. This software is an attempt to fix issues created by proprietary software with another piece of proprietary software, which is if nothing else an interesting decision.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    UNIX wasn't free. Windows wasn't free. It wasn't until some knucklehead came along and did something abnormal and gave away their thing. Bakers don't give away their goods. Mechanics don't typically repair things for free. Builders don't build things for free. Gas stations don't give away gas. Why do we think all software should be free, and then think that those that don't give it away are the abnormal ones?

dheera 2y ago

Also, can I even buy an AMD GPU? I don't see a "buy now" button or a PCIe version anywhere here https://www.amd.com/en/products/accelerators/instinct/mi300/mi300x.html https://www.amd.com/en/products/accelerators/instinct/mi300/... Another big AMD fuckup in my opinion. Nobody is going to drop millions on these things without being able to test them out first. First rule of sales: If you have something for sale, take my money.

nwiswell 2y ago
> I don't see a "buy now" button or a PCIe version anywhere here "Buy now" buttons and online shopping carts are not generally how organizations looking to spend serious money on AI buy their hardware. They have a long list of server hardware partners, and odds are you'd already have an existing relationship with one or more of them, and they'd provide a quote. They even go one step further and show off some of their partners' solutions: https://www.amd.com/en/graphics/servers-instinct-deep-learning https://www.amd.com/en/graphics/servers-instinct-deep-learni... FWIW I believe Supermicro and Exxact actually do have web-based shopping carts these days, so maybe you could skip the quotation and buy directly if you were so motivated? Seems kind of weird at this price point. https://www.exxactcorp.com/Exxact-TS4-185328443-E185328443 https://www.exxactcorp.com/Exxact-TS4-185328443-E185328443
- dheera 2y ago
  ... and that's why AMD is losing. They could break the trend and offer a "buy now" button instead of offering quotes and coffee chats. It's very likely that will kickstart the software snowball with early adopters. Nobody is going to drop millions on an unproven platform. > Seems kind of weird at this price point. Yeah that $234K server is too much for people to do a trial. It has 8xMI300X GPUs along with a bunch of other shit. Give me a single MI300X GPU in PCIe form factor for $20K and I'd very seriously consider. I'm sure there are many people who would help adapt the ecosystem if they were truly available.
  - nwiswell 2y ago
    Why would you be looking to dip your toe into the AMD ecosystem for the first time using an MI300X? It doesn't make any sense. It's not entry level hardware.