Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't update its client regularly. The release cycle is > possibly > slower than Debian Stable. There has been talk of v6 for several years > now, and I think that version just recently went into alpha testing if > it made it that far (I'm no longer a beta tester with early access to > project info, so I can't verify that). > > The v4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] client still works eventhough v5 has been out for a > long > time. Its usefulness is somewhat reduced because there are no more > deadlineless WUs handed out by the project, but it still works. I don't > think this is a real problem.
Has there been any talk about moving to the BOINC infrastructure? >> Lastly, I am not sure that closed-sourceness is the best strategy against >> cheating. I guess that the expertise area of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is structural >> biology, wheras the expertise of cheaters is... well... cheating. > > Guaranteeing the integrity of the research is indeed the primary reason > to keep the [EMAIL PROTECTED] client and cores closed-source. Even though > they are > build with GPL components like Gromacs. But "[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been > granted a non-commercial, non-GPL license for Gromacs, so [they] are not > required to release [the] source." > http://folding.stanford.edu/gromacs.html But the only way to be sure that the individual users don't cheat would be to require Treacherous Computing. Instead, BOINC-powered projects rely on handing out several copies of each work unit and checking that the reported results match. Perhaps [EMAIL PROTECTED] does this as well. I don't think that all BOINC projects release source, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] code is free (as is the BOINC client itself), for example, and in that case it's possible to package an optimized version. Otherwise the BOINC client automatically downloads the right executable. -- Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
