high-performance computing ➤


soſtware. Depending on the licence, open- source also allows the ultimate backup support model – dive into the code and fix any problems yourself. One other aspect related to open vs closed-


source is exploiting new computational architectures – such as Xeon Phi, GPUs, and ARM. Users of closed-source soſtware are at the mercy of their soſtware provider in being able to use new technologies. Open- source users have the option to port the code directly themselves or pay a specialist to do so (assuming the licence conditions allow this).


Ideology vs commerce? So, given that open-source vs. closed source soſtware doesn’t really assure the user about support, quality, license limitations, cost – might one conclude that the debate is little more than ideology vs. commercial interests? However, ideology aside, the role of


open-source soſtware is an important topic in both academia and industry. In academia (and national labs) especially, the argument applies to both soſtware created and soſtware used. I’ve written about this topic before; for example, I co-authored an article in 2015 with Dan Katz, Simon Hettrick and Neil Chue Hong (www.hpcnotes.com/2015/08/ the-price-of-open-source-soſtware-joint. html). In this article, we argued that soſtware


developed with public funds should be released as open-source by default (although not mandatory). Tis could be implemented as an onus on any researcher in academia or national labs writing soſtware to demonstrate either that there is a clear reason why the soſtware should not be open-sourced, or that no public funds were used in the development of the soſtware. It is a delicate argument to make that one


researcher should get the financial benefit of charging other users (whether academics or not) to use soſtware for which that researcher was themself publicly funded to create. Indeed, several people argue quite strongly that all soſtware developed with public funds should be freely available to commercialise by anyone, so not just open-source but unrestrictive licensing too. While entirely credible on a national


scale, this starts to get a little awkward when considering international aspects. For example, should soſtware funded by the UK public purse be available for free commercialisation by American companies? Is protecting against this more or less of an evil than hindering commercialisation by UK companies and thus creating an economic benefit back to ‘UK plc’?


14 SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING WORLD


Case for re-use Perhaps more importantly though, we argued loudly in this article (and elsewhere) to support a culture of soſtware re-use within academia. Tere are currently only weak incentives for academics to re-use existing soſtware, with the result that much public funding is wasted recreating soſtware capabilities across multiple groups, each claiming to be ‘unique’ in order to justify it as a research objective. We also very firmly called for the


involvement of professional soſtware developers where appropriate, working in an integrated manner with the researchers. It


care whether the source code is locked in a vault or broadcast by a town crier. However, they do care whether the soſtware is tested, will continue to be updated with new features and support for new platforms, is usable, and is documented. Tey also care how much it costs to acquire, support and use the soſtware. Proprietary soſtware has traditionally


dominated the commercial user space, because such soſtware has been able to meet these needs better than open-source soſtware. Or, perhaps more honestly, proprietary soſtware has been able to convince customers that they meet these needs better than open- source soſtware. Aſter all, how many open- source options have a marketing department to compete with the soſtware vendors?


OPEN-SOURCE MAKES NO STATEMENT AS TO THE LICENSING CONDITIONS


is not helpful that the academic world only incentivises ‘research excellence’ – and does even that poorly. Te essential role of specialist scientific soſtware developers in enabling a huge proportion of modern research must be recognised, rewarded, and funded properly. Addressing this challenge in research


soſtware is one of the goals of the Research Soſtware Engineer (RSE) movement in the UK (www.rse.ac.uk). We noted that such specialist programmers could be based in academia or industry – the key, we argued, is for research funding rules to encourage either the support of properly funded academic RSE positions or for research grants to fund non-academic sources of such expertise. Mike Croucher, one of the UK’s newly


crowned Research Soſtware Fellows, recently wrote a wonderful blog describing the impact delivered by RSEs and the motivations driving such specialists (www.walkingrandomly. com/?p=5997). But open-source soſtware is not just an


issue for academia. It is a theme with surging momentum in the commercial space too. In general, commercial users of soſtware don’t


False economies? Historically, even what appears to be expensive proprietary soſtware is oſten significantly less expensive in reality than the cost of employing someone to develop soſtware with similar functionality, or of properly qualifying and implementing an open-source alternative. If a user’s needs are fulfilled by non-free soſtware (whether open or closed source), then there has normally been a solid case for purchasing that soſtware rather than seeking or developing an open- source alternative. However, the perceived unresponsiveness


of soſtware vendors to address unsustainable licence pricing models, uncooperative licence limitations (such as banning benchmarking), and slow support for new hardware technologies, are driving a willingness among commercial users to re-evaluate the true costs and benefits of open-source or in-house developed alternatives. Various scientific computing companies


now sell support services for open-source soſtware, or even for in-house soſtware, helping to make these soſtware options a credible business-ready and affordable option for industry. Most users of soſtware sensibly employ


a mixture of soſtware tools that span open- source, closed-source, proprietary, ‘free’ and in-house. Many modern soſtware developers also decide to use a hybrid of open-source and proprietary models within an integrated code- base. Advocating either open-source only, or commercial only, soſtware dogmas are both narrow-minded and unhelpful in allowing the researcher or the business the freedom to deliver the best outcomes. So let’s just keep ideological debates out


of the users’ way and be flexible to invest in whichever soſtware delivers the best science and engineering advances. l


@scwmagazine l www.scientific-computing.com


McIek/Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36