Hi Ryan,
Would the current libraries contribute that much of a difference? I don't
expect them to be identical to say 3rd or 4th decimal place, but even
considering rounding and precision, shouldn't it be similar? Disclosure-
I've never tried testing Amber compilations across different libraries.
My very rough grasp of its timeline makes me think 1990-1996? The Amber7
manual is dated to 2002, so I'd guess it'd have been built on Debaian 1.0
or maybe even earlier?
Best,
Kenneth
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:35 PM Ryan Novosielski <novosirj.rutgers.edu>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think that's probably unlikely. Even in cases where cases where a
> piece of software compiles fine on either, if it builds against a
> specific version of a library (whatever.so.5), it's probably not going
> to work out on the newer one. Not sure when Amber 4 was from,
> though/what OS would have been current. I don't think I've come across
> older than 11 myself. Would that then be from 2004? So I guess RHEL
> 2-3/Debian 3.0 timeframe?
>
> On 12/16/20 12:54 AM, Kenneth Huang wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > Yeah, that was my next try, since I naively thought sander
> > shouldn't have changed too much that present day libraries may
> > work? Though I've had little luck in finding any one with the
> > source code or much documentation from that far back- I knew it was
> > a very, very long stretch, given how far back I'm digging.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:20 PM Bill Ross <ross.cgl.ucsf.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'd find a copy of the source and compile it. Probably
> >> sander/cpu wouldn't be a lot of work to do. A binary from then
> >> might expect old libs to be in place.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> On 12/15/20 2:37 PM, Kenneth Huang wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> A very strange question- does anyone happen to have, or know
> >>> anyone who
> >> has
> >>> the old binaries for Amber 4 gathering dust on a hard disk?
> >>>
> >>> I'm having something of a debate about whether the minimization
> >>> procedure in what was shipped in Amber 4 (assuming done in
> >>> sander?) would be comperable to minimization in contemporary
> >>> Amber (specifically sander in Amber 16,18, 20) builds given the
> >>> same setup, parameters, etc. Given
> >> sander
> >>> is one of the older parts of Amber, my thought is that it
> >>> shouldn't have changed much?
> >>>
> >>> Barring the unlikely chance anyone has still code that old
> >>> around still, would there be any good way to test to see if the
> >>> minization changed in a signficant way? My first thought was to
> >>> find a minimized test structure
> >> in
> >>> the source code that might date back from that time, but I
> >>> haven't had
> >> much
> >>> luck in sifting through the test folder so far.
>
> - --
> #BlackLivesMatter
> ____
> || \\UTGERS, |----------------------*O*------------------------
> ||_// the State | Ryan Novosielski - novosirj.rutgers.edu
> || \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 ~*~ RBHS Campus
> || \\ of NJ | Office of Advanced Res. Comp. - MSB C630, Newark
> `'
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iF0EARECAB0WIQST3OUUqPn4dxGCSm6Zv6Bp0RyxvgUCX9pFSAAKCRCZv6Bp0Ryx
> vjZYAKCV6iHVkW4/N5LcKYCraChPzL1VlwCeP7wYHTlkj2bLcRfgKfY8dMD1Nxk=
> =xEl6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
--
Ask yourselves, all of you, what power would hell have if those imprisoned
here could not dream of heaven?
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Wed Dec 16 2020 - 13:00:02 PST
