R devel - Oct 2017 - Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?

[Sent offlist accidentally]

What concerns me first and foremost is that the licensure would have
to be ironclad (including for commercial use like vanilla R now) as
well as ensuring that R remains completely FLOSS. Anything ?added? to
R has to be a no-strings-attached gift to R.

Also, I would think that it would have to play nice with existing
workflows (like OpenBLAS instead of MKL) unless there is such a
benefit that it is worth breaking compatibility.

Avi

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kenny Bell <kmbell56 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> User here: incorporating Intel's MKL, as MRO does, would be a very
welcome
> addition.
>
> I was an MRO user before and it improved my experience with medium data
> immensely.
>
> They did, however, leave behind bugs here and there, especially related to
> development with Rcpp, so I switched back to vanilla R.
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 9:42 AM Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Dear R Developers,
>>
>> First of all, I would like to thank you Jeroen Ooms for taking the
binary
>> Window Builds from Duncan. I firmly believe that the R Community will
>> benefit a lot from his work.
>>
>> However, the debate I would like to open is about if some of Microsoft
R
>> Open Code shall be ported from R Open to Mainstream R.
>>
>> There are some beneficts in R Open such as multithreaded performance:
>> https://mran.microsoft.com/documents/rro/multithread/
>>
>> Maybe, the R Consortium, and in particular, Microsoft R Team, could
>> collaborate, if appropriate, in such duty.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Juan Telleria
>>
>>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

So as long as I can read, OpenBlas, for Windows, might be a worth
considering option:
http://www.openblas.net

But Intel MKL also seems to be free*:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/free-mkl

Thank you,
Juan

El 30/10/2017 6:45 p. m., "Avraham Adler" <avraham.adler at
gmail.com>
escribi?:
> [Sent offlist accidentally]
>
> What concerns me first and foremost is that the licensure would have
> to be ironclad (including for commercial use like vanilla R now) as
> well as ensuring that R remains completely FLOSS. Anything ?added? to
> R has to be a no-strings-attached gift to R.
>
> Also, I would think that it would have to play nice with existing
> workflows (like OpenBLAS instead of MKL) unless there is such a
> benefit that it is worth breaking compatibility.
>
> Avi
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kenny Bell <kmbell56 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > User here: incorporating Intel's MKL, as MRO does, would be a very
> welcome
> > addition.
> >
> > I was an MRO user before and it improved my experience with medium
data
> > immensely.
> >
> > They did, however, leave behind bugs here and there, especially
related
> to
> > development with Rcpp, so I switched back to vanilla R.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 9:42 AM Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear R Developers,
> >>
> >> First of all, I would like to thank you Jeroen Ooms for taking the
> binary
> >> Window Builds from Duncan. I firmly believe that the R Community
will
> >> benefit a lot from his work.
> >>
> >> However, the debate I would like to open is about if some of
Microsoft R
> >> Open Code shall be ported from R Open to Mainstream R.
> >>
> >> There are some beneficts in R Open such as multithreaded
performance:
> >> https://mran.microsoft.com/documents/rro/multithread/
> >>
> >> Maybe, the R Consortium, and in particular, Microsoft R Team,
could
> >> collaborate, if appropriate, in such duty.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Juan Telleria
> >>
> >>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >>
> >
> >         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

2017-10-31 14:34 GMT+01:00 Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at
gmail.com>:
> So as long as I can read, OpenBlas, for Windows, might be a worth
> considering option:
> http://www.openblas.net
>
> But Intel MKL also seems to be free*:
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/free-mkl
install.packages("rmsfact")
sub(".*because ", "", rmsfact::rmsfact(8))

I?aki

OpenBlas seems to have a performance similar to Intel MKL, as is stated in
Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBLAS

However, I would suggest debating this topic in the R Consortium and the R
Foundation, for taking the best decision possible for the future or R.

Thank you all,
Juan

El 31/10/2017 2:55 p. m., "I?aki ?car" <i.ucar86 at gmail.com>
escribi?:

2017-10-31 14:34 GMT+01:00 Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at
gmail.com>:
> So as long as I can read, OpenBlas, for Windows, might be a worth
> considering option:
> http://www.openblas.net
>
> But Intel MKL also seems to be free*:
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/free-mkl
install.packages("rmsfact")
sub(".*because ", "", rmsfact::rmsfact(8))

I?aki

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]