Intel Fortran license?
Donald Arseneau
(for Linux) but after download I saw that the free license
seems much more restrictive than it was previously, with
"commercial" activity more broadly defined. Am I reading
it right? It looks like I won't be able to use it in any
way that might be connected with work.
--
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Mr Hrundi V Bakshi
"Donald Arseneau" <as...@triumf.ca> wrote in message
news:yfir7bb...@triumf.ca...
Just where did you acquire your grandiose sense of entitlement? Freeloading
TRIUMF is joke enough without it's pions whining about having to pay for
software. Tse, tse,
--
You're Welcome,
Hrundi V. Bakshi
______
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the fault of his
feet." -- Samuel Beckett.
> --
> Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
blm...@myrealbox.com
If the license restrictions are the same as for their C/C++
compiler (almost certainly true) -- yes. The language seems
pretty explicit to me. I used the previous version in teaching a
course last spring, but I won't be able to use the newer version
for that purpose without paying. I'm not happy about it, but I
guess it's Intel's compiler and they can make the rules.
(I'd ask whether anyone has recommendations for a free C/C++ compiler
that supports OpenMP, but -- probably too far off-topic.)
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
FX
> that supports OpenMP, but -- probably too far off-topic.)
OpenMP support in GCC C and Fortran compilers (gcc and gfortran) is a
work under way. There has been a lot of activity on it these last weeks
(currently on the gomp branch; gomp is GCC OpenMP): while it is not yet
in beta-state, it looks very promising.
--
FX
Tim Prince
> In article <yfir7bb...@triumf.ca>,
> Donald Arseneau <as...@triumf.ca> wrote:
>
>>I recently went to upgrade my free Intel Fortran compiler,
>>(for Linux) but after download I saw that the free license
>>seems much more restrictive than it was previously, with
>>"commercial" activity more broadly defined. Am I reading
>>it right? It looks like I won't be able to use it in any
>>way that might be connected with work.
>
>
> If the license restrictions are the same as for their C/C++
> compiler (almost certainly true) -- yes. The language seems
> pretty explicit to me. I used the previous version in teaching a
> course last spring, but I won't be able to use the newer version
> for that purpose without paying. I'm not happy about it, but I
> guess it's Intel's compiler and they can make the rules.
>
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219603.htm
Steve Lionel
You are probably reading it right. We found that there was widespread abuse
of the "non-commercial" licenses, especially by businesses. So about a year
or two ago, we reworded the text to be clearer. (The alternative, promoted by
some, was to do away with the non-commercial license altogether.)
I suggest you read
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/flin/219692.htm
for more information (this is the FAQ link off of the Non-Commercial License
page). If after reading it you still are unsure, there's an e-mail address
listed where you can write for clarification.
Steve Lionel
Software Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH
User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
http://developer.intel.com/software/products/support/
blm...@myrealbox.com
Yes, thanks. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this means
I can pay less, but with more hassle (payment must be an official
university purchase order rather than, e.g., personal credit card).
It's been several years since I've had a need to do this (and isn't
*that* a remarkable statement, either about what I think I need or
about the quality and availability of zero-cost software!), so I may
be overestimating the hassle factor. Or not.
Mr Hrundi V Bakshi
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3pv181F...@individual.net...
Why not apply for United Way funding or perhaps you're afraid of undoubted
rejection given the lack of merits or otherwise in your plea? Intel already
operates a compiler charity on the back of Windows, what's it called,
Lunix?
--
You're Welcome,
Hrundi V.B.
______
"As a native of the snow belt of upstate New York, I too claim the feisty
independence of the Northerner. I was raised, I like to say, breathing
cold, clear Canadian air." Camille Paglia.
Kamaraju Kusumanchi
In case you do not already know, If you want a free fortran compiler use
g95 or gfortran. In my experience g95 has fewer bugs than gfortran
(YMMV) but both are very good and free. Even the source code is available.
http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/
http://www.g95.org/
hth
raju
blm...@myrealbox.com
Useful to know for future reference; thanks! it's no help for an
"I need it now!!" project, but oh well.
An e-mail correspondent pointed me to http://www.compunity.org ("The
Community of OpenMP Users"). They have links to freeware projects,
and while they don't mention the GNU project (and claim that Intel's
compilers are free for academic use, which sadly is no longer the
case), they do list some other projects to develop OpenMP-supporting
compilers. (To bring this somewhat closer to on-topic, the ones
listed include some for Fortran as well.) FWIW, FYI, etc.
blm...@myrealbox.com
I doubt your question ("why not apply ....") is serious, but I'll
answer it anyway: Because my irritation has less to do with the cost,
which for a single-user license is modest, than with the perceived
hassle factor of nonzero-cost software. Getting my employer to pay is
(I think) somewhat more hassle than just paying myself. I'm inclined
to suspect that trying to get United Way to pay would if anything
increase the hassle factor.
Now that I think about it, if the goal is minimize hassle as well as
cost, even the previous versions of Intel's compiler were not ideal,
since (as far as I could tell) each person wanting to use the "free for
non-commercial use" version needed to download and install a separate
copy and obtain an individual license key. This precludes the kind
of setup I would usually want for a course with a lab component,
in which I install the same software on a lot of machines and make
it available for anyone (with an account on the machines) to use.
(I don't really want to argue about whether Intel's policies are
justified. As I said -- their compiler, so they can make the rules.
Sun has taken a somewhat different approach with Java, but the
situations may be different.)
Venturing a little further off-topic, it's interesting to me that it
seems to be taking a lot longer for these open-source / no-cost OpenMP
compiler projects to get off the ground, while that doesn't seem to
have been the case for implementations of MPI. Maybe the explanation
is similar to -- well, whyever it is that gfortran/g95 seems to get a
lot less attention/resources than gcc/g++? lack of widespread demand?
I wonder if that will change (for OpenMP) as multicore chips become
more common.
Richard E Maine
blm...@myrealbox.com (blm...@myrealbox.com) wrote:
> I doubt your question ("why not apply ....") is serious, but I'll
> answer it anyway: Because my irritation has less to do with the cost,
> which for a single-user license is modest, than with the perceived
> hassle factor of nonzero-cost software. Getting my employer to pay is
> (I think) somewhat more hassle than just paying myself.
Boy do I understand that! More than once I have just broken down and
paid for something at work out of my own pocket, plenty of money being
available for it at work, just in order to avoid the hassle.
Heck, sometimes it is even *MORE* hassle to get something cheaper. An
economist could probably tell me what kind of cost curve it is that I'm
evaluating, but it sure isn't the trivial kind you see in econ 101. :-)
Several hundred dollars for a compiler is not too awfully big a deal;
the worst part would be the special paperwork required to justify
anything that has anything to do with computers. (There has been a
"temporary" freeze on all computer-related purchases for at least a
decade, with no end in sight. What it turns out to really mean is that
any computer-related purchase automatically has an extra bunch of
paperwork and procedures to request a "waiver" from the freeze.) Adding
up all the costs involved, including the costs of people's time, it
"only" costs a few hundred dollars for all the paperwork overhead.
But when I had a keyboard die and was happy with one that was $7.95 or
so (in fact I like the cheap ones *better* than the ones with all the
extra crap^h^h^hfeatures), there was no way I was going to go in and ask
for that amount of money. I just bought one at Best Buy that evening out
of my own pocket. A few months later, my boss also had a dead keyboard
and came to ask if we had any spares. I recommended the same approach to
him (and that's what he did).
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
Jugoslav Dujic
|
| But when I had a keyboard die and was happy with one that was $7.95 or
| so (in fact I like the cheap ones *better* than the ones with all the
| extra crap^h^h^hfeatures)
Amen to that.
I'm a proud user of a 5-year old Chicony KB-7906 with "ergonomic" shape,
costed around $25 at the time. Apart from excellent quality, the thing
I most like about it is that it has 101 key (or less, lazy to count);
I doubt I could find anything similar these days.
--
Jugoslav
___________
www.xeffort.com
Please reply to the newsgroup.
You can find my real e-mail on my home page above.
Gordon Sande
> In article <3q1vd0F...@individual.net>,
> blm...@myrealbox.com (blm...@myrealbox.com) wrote:
>
>> I doubt your question ("why not apply ....") is serious, but I'll
>> answer it anyway: Because my irritation has less to do with the cost,
>> which for a single-user license is modest, than with the perceived
>> hassle factor of nonzero-cost software. Getting my employer to pay is
>> (I think) somewhat more hassle than just paying myself.
>
> Boy do I understand that! More than once I have just broken down and
> paid for something at work out of my own pocket, plenty of money being
> available for it at work, just in order to avoid the hassle.
>
> Heck, sometimes it is even *MORE* hassle to get something cheaper. An
> economist could probably tell me what kind of cost curve it is that I'm
> evaluating, but it sure isn't the trivial kind you see in econ 101. :-)
Nonfungibility of budget lines, to use some overpriced jargon. :-(
(That is in microeconomic speak, or structual rigidities in macroeconomic
speak.)
It is usually there to keep city hall from spending road maintenance money
of fancy junkets, or hiring their friends, or rewriting working Fortran
systems in C++ or (pick your favorite political folly/scandal).
> Several hundred dollars for a compiler is not too awfully big a deal;
> the worst part would be the special paperwork required to justify
> anything that has anything to do with computers. (There has been a
> "temporary" freeze on all computer-related purchases for at least a
> decade, with no end in sight. What it turns out to really mean is that
> any computer-related purchase automatically has an extra bunch of
> paperwork and procedures to request a "waiver" from the freeze.) Adding
> up all the costs involved, including the costs of people's time, it
> "only" costs a few hundred dollars for all the paperwork overhead.
>
> But when I had a keyboard die and was happy with one that was $7.95 or
> so (in fact I like the cheap ones *better* than the ones with all the
> extra crap^h^h^hfeatures), there was no way I was going to go in and
> ask for that amount of money. I just bought one at Best Buy that
> evening out of my own pocket. A few months later, my boss also had a
> dead keyboard and came to ask if we had any spares. I recommended the
> same approach to him (and that's what he did).
And I thought I was the only one who objected to some of the more arcane
"features" of various fancy keyboards.
Richard E Maine
Gordon Sande <g.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On 2005-09-29 12:30:18 -0300, Richard E Maine <nos...@see.signature> said:
>
> > Heck, sometimes it is even *MORE* hassle to get something cheaper. An
> > economist could probably tell me what kind of cost curve it is that I'm
> > evaluating, but it sure isn't the trivial kind you see in econ 101. :-)
>
> Nonfungibility of budget lines, to use some overpriced jargon. :-(
> (That is in microeconomic speak, or structual rigidities in macroeconomic
> speak.)
I could be wrong, as I haven't even actually taken that econ 101 course
formally (though I've read some of the books a bit past the 101 level),
but I don't think that's the same issue. That's probably what keeps me
from buying my keyboard with money from the office supplies fund. But I
don't think that's what makes it harder for me to buy a $7.95 keyboard
than it would be for me to buy a $200 one from the same fund source.
(I think I've seen some $200+ keyboards. And, not that I want one, but
if I seriously did and asked the boss, he'd probably ok it, after
looking at me funny and asking why. Of course, that's partly because I
wouldn't ask unless I actually had a good answer for the question.)
I think it is more like something "funny" in the cost/demand curve.
Gordon Sande
> In article <2005092913484716807%gsande@worldnetattnet>,
> Gordon Sande <g.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-09-29 12:30:18 -0300, Richard E Maine <nos...@see.signature> said:
>>
>>> Heck, sometimes it is even *MORE* hassle to get something cheaper. An
>>> economist could probably tell me what kind of cost curve it is that I'm
>>> evaluating, but it sure isn't the trivial kind you see in econ 101. :-)
>>
>> Nonfungibility of budget lines, to use some overpriced jargon. :-(
>> (That is in microeconomic speak, or structual rigidities in macroeconomic
>> speak.)
>
> I could be wrong, as I haven't even actually taken that econ 101 course
> formally (though I've read some of the books a bit past the 101 level),
> but I don't think that's the same issue. That's probably what keeps me
> from buying my keyboard with money from the office supplies fund. But I
> don't think that's what makes it harder for me to buy a $7.95 keyboard
> than it would be for me to buy a $200 one from the same fund source.
>
> (I think I've seen some $200+ keyboards. And, not that I want one, but
> if I seriously did and asked the boss, he'd probably ok it, after
> looking at me funny and asking why. Of course, that's partly because I
> wouldn't ask unless I actually had a good answer for the question.)
>
> I think it is more like something "funny" in the cost/demand curve.
If one wants to push it you end up saying something like the cost is
a combination of cash, from the equipment line, and time, from a
staffing line, so it becomes too expensive. This starts to require
transaction costs and bounded rationality in which one notices the
cost of determining the price that is to be paid is too expensive
to bother. Sometimes it is sensible to not do the "best" thing
and sometimes the stupid rules make it difficult (or worse) to
even attempt to try to do something sensible. It is the fixed
coefficients on the two lines that is the nonfungibility combined
but the the minimum amount of paper work is the transaction cost.
Rules that may be sensible on how to buy a supercomputer complex
degrade into absurd folly when applied to replacement keyboards
as you have shown. And you also gave a nice example of how price
and value are not the same, even for you at different times.
This all can get quite bizarre when one starts to look at joint effects.
I was once involved in a pricing study when there were several coproduced
products (various petrochemicals coming off a cracker) and it made
sense to have a negative price for some products. Paying folks to take
a product that other producers were trying to make a profit on
can lead to some interesting issues. Instead it was stored in a salt
dome in the hope that it would have a positive price in the future. It
eventually did but the time scale was measured in multiple years.
I don't want to try to push my wise ass remark too far but there
are some interesting issues on the small end of economic transactions
that are fun to try to deal with analytically.
Brooks Moses
> In article <3q1vd0F...@individual.net>,
> blm...@myrealbox.com (blm...@myrealbox.com) wrote:
>>I doubt your question ("why not apply ....") is serious, but I'll
>>answer it anyway: Because my irritation has less to do with the cost,
>>which for a single-user license is modest, than with the perceived
>>hassle factor of nonzero-cost software. Getting my employer to pay is
>>(I think) somewhat more hassle than just paying myself.
>
> Boy do I understand that! More than once I have just broken down and
> paid for something at work out of my own pocket, plenty of money being
> available for it at work, just in order to avoid the hassle.
>
> Heck, sometimes it is even *MORE* hassle to get something cheaper. An
> economist could probably tell me what kind of cost curve it is that I'm
> evaluating, but it sure isn't the trivial kind you see in econ 101. :-)
Well, the main thing there is that "cost" (in an economic sense) does
not mean direct cash flow, even though it's often measured in dollars.
Hassle is part of the cost, and any competent economic analysis of your
situation will include some cost value associated with the hassle, such
that three hours of paperwork gets assigned some number of dollars per hour.
So, it's very simple: you have a number of possible options for
purchasing the keyboard. You pick the one that's cheapest to you, when
_all_ of the costs are considered.
Thus, you win, because you got the cheapest option. And your company
wins, because they don't have to pay anything for the new keyboard. And
any management that claims that that makes it a win-win situation ought
to be taken out back and shot.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
J. F. Cornwall
> On 2005-09-29 14:18:40 -0300, Richard E Maine <nos...@see.signature> said:
>
>> In article <2005092913484716807%gsande@worldnetattnet>,
>> Gordon Sande <g.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I don't want to try to push my wise ass remark too far but there
> are some interesting issues on the small end of economic transactions
> that are fun to try to deal with analytically.
Ah, this is obviously some usage of the word "fun" with which I was
previously unfamiliar...
I'll have some Vogon poetry instead, please. :-)
Jim
Richard E Maine
"J. F. Cornwall" <JCor...@cox.net> wrote:
> I'll have some Vogon poetry instead, please. :-)
Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits
On a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me
with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
See if I don't.
But I suppose this is getting to be a pretty bad case of subject drift.
:-)
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip)
> Several hundred dollars for a compiler is not too awfully big a deal;
> the worst part would be the special paperwork required to justify
> anything that has anything to do with computers. (There has been a
> "temporary" freeze on all computer-related purchases for at least a
> decade, with no end in sight. What it turns out to really mean is that
> any computer-related purchase automatically has an extra bunch of
> paperwork and procedures to request a "waiver" from the freeze.) Adding
> up all the costs involved, including the costs of people's time, it
> "only" costs a few hundred dollars for all the paperwork overhead.
If I understand it right, DEC sold Programmable Data Processors
for the same reason, to get around the complications on buying
things called "computers".
-- glen
Richard Maine
glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> If I understand it right, DEC sold Programmable Data Processors
> for the same reason, to get around the complications on buying
> things called "computers".
The complications have gotten broader in recent decades. It is now
anything even vaguely related to "information technology", partly in
order to get around such renaming. I'm waiting for someone to decide
that paper, pens, chairs, etc. are information technology equipment and
thus require the same extra paperwork. After all, you can use those
things in programming. (Actually, consumables are a bit simpler, having
some kind of special routine waiver, so the pencils and paper could fit
under that.)
Kevin G. Rhoads
>
AHA! NASA has been in touch with aliens!
Richard E Maine
I can truthfully say that I am not authorized to publicly state anything
that I might know about NASA involvement with area 51. :-)
Rich Townsend
> In article <43418BC7...@alum.mit.edu>,
> "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>>I'll have some Vogon poetry instead, please. :-)
>>>
>>> Oh freddled gruntbuggly, ...
>>
>>AHA! NASA has been in touch with aliens!
>
>
> I can truthfully say that I am not authorized to publicly state anything
> that I might know about NASA involvement with area 51. :-)
>
The mandated phraseology is "...neither confirm nor deny...". Mssrs. Smith &
Smith will be with you shortly to correct your slip, comrade...
The computer is your friend! Trust the computer!