Avraham Adler
2017-Oct-30 17:45 UTC
[Rd] 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
Juan Telleria
2017-Oct-31 13:34 UTC
[Rd] Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
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]]
Iñaki Úcar
2017-Oct-31 13:55 UTC
[Rd] Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
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-mklinstall.packages("rmsfact") sub(".*because ", "", rmsfact::rmsfact(8)) I?aki
Juan Telleria
2017-Oct-31 14:10 UTC
[Rd] Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
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-mklinstall.packages("rmsfact") sub(".*because ", "", rmsfact::rmsfact(8)) I?aki [[alternative HTML version deleted]]