3 ms·
> The argument against Mojo is that it replaces CUDA (that you get for free with the hardware) with something that you need to license. You realize that CUDA i
by GeekyBear 1y ago
> The argument against Mojo is that it replaces CUDA (that you get for free with the hardware) with something that you need to license.
You realize that CUDA isn't open source or planned to be open source in the future, right?
Meanwhile parts of Mojo are already open source with the rest expected to be opened up next year.
- deagle50 1y agoparent said free, not open source. I want Mojo to succeed, but I'm also doubtful of the business model.
- GeekyBear 1y agoDo you get a functional version of CUDA free with AMD's much more reasonably priced hardware? Mojo is planned to be both free and open source by the end of next year and it's not vendor locked to extremely expensive hardware.
- pjmlp 1y agoTo take full advantage of Mojo you will need Modular's ecosystem, and they need to pay the VCs back somehow. Also as of today anything CUDA works out of the box in Windows, Mojo might eventually work outside WSL, some day.