Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 162 posts

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#131

Post by KeplerBoy »

nsajko wrote: post #123
KeplerBoy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a problem on a different level of the CUDA stack. Having a compiler that takes a special C++ or python dialect and compiles it to GPU suitable llvm-ir and then to a GPU binary is one thing (and there's progress on that side: triton, numba, soonish mojo), being able to launch that binary without going through the nvidia driver is another problem.

> [...] there's progress [...] Don't forget about Julia!

and jax, tinygrad and halide. God it's such an awesome time to be into that stuff.

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#132

Post by lambdaone »

kstenerud wrote: post #87
daft_pink wrote: post #39

I think the point of open cuda is to run it on non NVIDIA gpus. Once you have to buy NVIDIA gpus what’s the point. If we had true you competition I think it would be far easier to buy devices with more vram and thus we might be able to run llama 405b someday locally. Once you already bought the NVIDIA cards what’s the point

I think the point of Linux is to run it on non-Intel CPUs. Once you have to buy Intel CPUs what's the point.

You have it exactly backwards. The original goal of Linux was to create a Unix-like operating system on Linus Torvald's own Intel 80386 PC. Once the original Linux had been created, it was then ported to other CPUs. The joy of a portable operating system is that you can run it on any CPU, including Intel CPUs.

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#133

Post by horsawlarway »

galkk wrote: post #93
IgorPartola wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear hear. Yes practically if you need to run a workload on a closed source system or if that’s your only option to get the performance then you have to do what you have to do. But in the long run open source wins because once an open source alternative exists it is just the better option. As a bonus, with open source platforms you are much less subject to whims of company licensing. If tomorrow Nvidia decided to cha…

> But in the long run open source wins because once an open source alternative exists it is just the better option. This is just wishful thinking. Anything close to real professional use, not related to IT, and closed source is king: office work, CAD, video editing, music production, and those domains immediately came to mind. Nowhere there open source can seriously challenge commercial, closed sourced competitors. Y…

I think open source does tend to win, it just does it slowly - often when the big commercial name screws up or changes ownership.

ex - I think Adobe is in the middle of this swing now, Blender is eating marketshare, and Krita is pretty incredible.

Unity is also struggling (I've seen a LOT of folks moving to Godot, or going back to unreal [which is not open, but is source-available - because having access matters]).

CAD hasn't quite tipped yet - but Freecad is getting better constantly. I used to default to Fusion360 and Solidworks, but I haven't had to break those out for personal use in the last 5 years or so (CNC/3d printing needs). It's not ready for professional use yet, but it now feels like how blender felt in 2010 - usable, if not quite up to par.

Office work... is a tough one - to date, Excel still remains king for the folks who actually need Excel. Everything else has moved to free (although not necessarily open source) editors. None of my employers have provided word/powerpoint for more than a decade now - and I haven't missed not having them.

I would argue that PDFs have gone the opensource route though, and that used to be a big name in office work (again - Adobe screwed up).

I don't really do any music production or video editing, so I can't really comment other than to say that ffmpeg is eating the world for commercial solutions under the hood, and it is solidly open. And on the streaming side of "Video" OBS studio is basically the only real player I'm aware of.

So... I don't really think it's wishful thinking. I think opensource is genuinely better most times, it just plays the long and slow game to getting there.

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#134

Post by almostgotcaught »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #102
galkk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in the long run open source wins because once an open source alternative exists it is just the better option. This is just wishful thinking. Anything close to real professional use, not related to IT, and closed source is king: office work, CAD, video editing, music production, and those domains immediately came to mind. Nowhere there open source can seriously challenge commercial, closed sourced competitors. Y…

Counter example: blender. It may not be winning in video editing, but it has serious market share in 3d rendering. Different players are investing money in it and extend it with their own stuff.

Have you ever heard the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"?

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#135

Post by [deleted] »

daft_pink wrote: post #39

I think the point of open cuda is to run it on non NVIDIA gpus. Once you have to buy NVIDIA gpus what’s the point. If we had true you competition I think it would be far easier to buy devices with more vram and thus we might be able to run llama 405b someday locally. Once you already bought the NVIDIA cards what’s the point

[deleted]

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#136

Post by greenavocado »

cj wrote: post #51
Dalewyn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder to what ends trademark protections reach. Firsthand example, both SpaceX and Subaru have services called Starlink. Subaru Starlink was first, but SpaceX Starlink is more famous. I've been confused and I've seen others be confused by the two.

A trademark is scoped to a specific industry / application. Starlink for internet is unlikely to be confused with STARLINK for Subaru car safety systems. (Perhaps the all caps also helps if they were sued) Trademark applications are scoped so that you can’t monopolize a name, you only own the name within the industry you operate in. For example, there’s a real estate investment fund named Apple and even trades with s…

The Sleekcraft test or the Ninth Circuit likelihood of confusion test, is used to determine trademark infringement in the United States, particularly in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This test evaluates several factors to assess whether there is a likelihood of confusion between two trademarks. Factors considered:

1. Strength of the mark

2. Proximity of the goods

3. Similarity of the marks

4. Evidence of actual confusion

5. Marketing channels used

6. Type of goods and degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser

7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark

8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines

To apply this test, courts examine each factor and weigh them collectively to determine if there's a likelihood of confusion between the trademarks in question. No single factor is determinative, and the importance of each factor may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

The courts will fudge their reasoning with those eight pillars to fit their opinion.

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#137

Post by dgroshev »

horsawlarway wrote: post #133
galkk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in the long run open source wins because once an open source alternative exists it is just the better option. This is just wishful thinking. Anything close to real professional use, not related to IT, and closed source is king: office work, CAD, video editing, music production, and those domains immediately came to mind. Nowhere there open source can seriously challenge commercial, closed sourced competitors. Y…

I think open source does tend to win, it just does it slowly - often when the big commercial name screws up or changes ownership. ex - I think Adobe is in the middle of this swing now, Blender is eating marketshare, and Krita is pretty incredible. Unity is also struggling (I've seen a LOT of folks moving to Godot, or going back to unreal [which is not open, but is source-available - because having access matters]). C…

I'm really sceptical that anything will happen in the CAD space bar massive state investment into open source infrastructure. Open CASCADE doesn't look to be catching up [1], while Solidworks continues to release foundational features like G3 continuity constraints, so the capability gap is going to widen over time.

I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

[1]: https://git.dev.opencascade.org/gitweb/?p=occt.git

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#138

Post by greenavocado »

gavindean90 wrote: post #43
greenavocado wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41195332

kudo seems to be in keeping with your comment. I am not sure what you are getting at.

It's far too similar.

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#139

Post by seniorThrowaway »

candiddevmike wrote: post #62
why_only_15 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically the clause is that you cannot use their consumer cards (e.g. RTX 4090) in datacenters.

That's why we run all of our ML workloads in a distributed GPU cluster located in every employee's house

you joke but I've thought about doing this

Re: LibreCUDA – Launch CUDA code on Nvidia GPUs without the proprietary runtime

#140

Post by dahart »

horsawlarway wrote: post #133
galkk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in the long run open source wins because once an open source alternative exists it is just the better option. This is just wishful thinking. Anything close to real professional use, not related to IT, and closed source is king: office work, CAD, video editing, music production, and those domains immediately came to mind. Nowhere there open source can seriously challenge commercial, closed sourced competitors. Y…

I think open source does tend to win, it just does it slowly - often when the big commercial name screws up or changes ownership. ex - I think Adobe is in the middle of this swing now, Blender is eating marketshare, and Krita is pretty incredible. Unity is also struggling (I've seen a LOT of folks moving to Godot, or going back to unreal [which is not open, but is source-available - because having access matters]). C…

> I would argue that PDFs have gone the opensource route though, and that used to be a big name in office work (again - Adobe screwed up).

Naw, just try to find a decent PDF editor. You will have a hard time. PDF display is fairly open, but PDF editing is not. PDFs are the dominant format for exchange of signed documents, still a big name in office work, and Adobe still controls the PDF editing app market.

I would love it if open source was winning in the imaging, audio or DCC markets, but it’s just not even close yet. Blender hasn’t touched pro market share, it’s just being used by lots and lots of hobbyists because it’s free to play with. Just did a survey of the film & VFX studios at Siggraph, and they aren’t even looking in Blender’s direction yet, they are good with Houdini, Maya, etc. Some of this has to do with fears and lack of understanding of open source licensing - studios are afraid of the legalities, and Ton has talked about needing to help educate them. Some new & small shops use Blender, but new & small shops come and go all the time, the business is extremely tough.

Office work is moving to Microsoft alternatives like Google Office products. That is not open source, not source available, and for most medium to large companies it’s not free either (though being “free” as in beer is irrelevant to your point). The company just pays behind the scenes and most employees don’t know it, or it’s driven by ad & analytics revenue.

Unix utilities and Linux server software are places where open source has some big “wins”, but unfortunately when it comes to content creation software, it still is wishful thinking. It could change in the future, and I honestly hope it does, but it’s definitely not there yet.

Post reply on HN