On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:46 AM, David A Case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011, Jason Swails wrote:
>
>> Another
>> option would be to sell *only* pmemd, as that program is entirely
>> self-contained (one could argue except for NetCDF libs, but that's unchanged
>> from any Amber that has it, and systems can install it separately), and
>> hopefully well-worth buying for $400, anyway, since it's faster (and in the
>> future more feature-rich hopefully) than NAMD anyway ;). It's also the only
>> GPU-enabled code in Amber, and probably the most mature GPU MD code out
>> there right now (or at least one of them).
>
> I think this is a good option, but there are probably lots of ramifications.
> But we should seriously consider it for the next release. We would then make
> an (internal) commitment to keep pmemd self-contained, so that the Amberxx
> and AmberToolsxx are much less intertwined than at present.
Is there an estimate on how many buyers are really paying just to use
pmemd or sander? In other words, how much "revenue" would be lost
moving this way?
Gustavo.
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Thu May 19 2011 - 06:30:02 PDT
