POLL...Do you want a 64 bit BOINC client & BOINC MANAGER for Windows XP64 ?
Language
Copyright © 2024 Einstein@Home. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2024 Einstein@Home. All rights reserved.
Well, I'm not yet suitably
)
Well, I'm not yet suitably informed about the BOINC technology to make a valuable statement about whether reporting results immediately brings an advantage or not, but as for the "losing results/credits because of system problems" I would like to say that this has never yet happened to me, and I have for sure had my share of power failures or computer problems due to a buggy gfx card driver causing freezing and random reboots. So I find it hard to believe that this really is such an issue for other users- or if it is, maybe it could simply be fixed by using different settings? I'm not quite sure if this is worth the effort... not the 64 bit client, that would probably be gr8, but enabling this option and having people flame about it.
RE: Wikipedia would appear
)
Then the Wiki is wrong. This is straight off the GNU GPL website:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
Alinator
wrong link
Just got done reading the Wiki article, and IMHO in the "Common Misconceptions" section the excerpt on source code release does not contradict, but is far less clearly stated than what's on the GNU GPL site.
Also, at least here in the US, a private, non-profit, hobbyist, membership group (like SETI-USA) would mostly likely be considered an organization in this context, much like amateur sporting leagues and other similiar groups are.
Alinator
RE: Since the Database
)
You’re neglecting the overhead of multiple transactions. The more time & processing it takes to negotiate a connection to the database, and to find & open a record, the more efficient it is to do updates in batches. The reports themselves contain only a tiny amount of data, but they require much more ‘handling’ at this stage than do the comparatively large result files.
As I said, these small
)
As I said, these small requests should not pose any problem to a suitable sized server and are therefor useless except for extremely short-equipped Projects (where a growing Userbase would quickly remedy any small advantage this procedure could yield).
It remains a useless feature and there's no project to have 1 Minute WorkUnits where it would start to make sense.
RE: As I said, these small
)
Although I can understand the "eloquence" in trying to consolidate DB access in terms of overall backend efficiency, I tend to agree with you on this. Depricating RRI always struck me as a "quick and dirty" fix to a SAH specific issue (and maybe some of the other really low budget projects) related to their relatively "creaky" hardware. They could have as easily accomplished the same thing by increasing their default after contact deferral period to say something on the order of 4 hours, just for the sake argument.
Another question is why can't the report info be included in the data upload in the first place? Then the backend could deal with it at it's leisure. I mean we don't have to call the project with the request for new work and then call back later to get it. You could also then have the host hold on to the combined file until the server sends back a "receipt" it was processed sucessfully at the next contact and is safe to delete or resend it if necessary, thus add some extra redundancy against failure.
One thing to note is you can workaround the issue by running the min CI (0.01 days or ~15 min.), but then you have to be willing to run multiple projects to avoid idle time and potentially run of work occaisionally on any given project.
Granted this isn't a lot of help to folks who want to be solo project crunchers, but you can take steps to minimze the risk of losing credit for successfully completed work from a catastrophic host crash due to being "forced" to hold on to reports any longer than absolutely necessary.
Alinator
RE: Then the Wiki is wrong.
)
And there it is: If you modify the code and keep it for yourself than you could disguise the code but if you release a software based on the modified code to the public you have to release the code as well.
RE: (cpu_affinity etc. will
)
Ouch!
Primarily this is a scientific project and not a egoshooter.
RE: RE: (cpu_affinity
)
Concure, I'll stick with the 32 bit ver.
RE: This is straight off
)
And therein lies the problem. You are quoting a commentary, or gloss, on the licence, just as I did. If you go back to the source text of the licence itself, the word 'organisation' is nowhere mentioned - not even as 'organization'!
In the actual licence, 'Each licensee is addressed as "you"', and the critical sentence is:
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Notice that the word is "recipient", as I quoted from Wikipedia.
So who is the "You" who is the original licensee in this case, on whom this obligation is placed? Did Berkeley licence the original to SETI-USA, or to an individual downloading programmer?
RE: And therein lies the
)
Agreed, but there is a crucial difference between the two interpretation sections of the license clause in question, which is the FAQ's on the GNU GPL were written to clarify the license text with the assistance of the GNU legal team. One has to consider it to be the more definitive interpretation of the intent of the license. The final arbiter of the intent, of course, would be a Court of Law in the jurisdiction where a case of license violation was filed.
With regard to the definition of "you" in the license text, at least here in the US, organizations are granted many of the rights and privileges of the individual.
Thus in the example of SETI-USA, the team is the licensee and has the right to make a binary only distribution of modified code to its members under the terms of the license. Members of the team are *not* recipients, they are users of the software in this context and are obligated to *not* distribute the binary outside of the team since they are not a licensee. This addresses roadrunner's comment in that the distribution of the modified binary to team members *only* does not constitute a release to the public. I would suspect (but have not researched it) that to be fully compliant with the GPL, SETI-USA would have to include some sort of EULA which stated any software provided was copyrighted by them and others, and use and/or distribution to non-team members was prohibited.
Regarding your last comment, there are also GNU FAQ's pertaining to the relationship between a developer and the organization sponsoring work done on their behalf under the GPL regarding transfer of rights and license obligations. Admittedly things get a little murky then, since you would have to be privy to the details of any terms drawn up between those two parties, but it is clear arrangements about non-disclosure can be reached which are in compliance with the GPL.
Again in the case of SETI-USA, the fact that Crunch3r (or others) is/are developing the software for them doesn't change the team's right to privately distribute a binary based on it. On the other hand, if they release a stripped down version of it to the public at large, then they would have to make the source code available for that version.
I should say that while I myself am not a lawyer, I have been involved with several projects which incorporated Open Source/GPL software for internal organizational use, and the advice from counsel was essentially what I stated above regarding the use of and license compliance with the software.
Alinator