Re: SETI@home (history)
I wrote: > >> IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software >> included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run >> _much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough >> data for the millions of computers that would process this >> data. >> >> I am confusing things? I couldn't find any reference for this. David Hobby wrote: > > Got me, but there was a problem at the start. The > server kept send out the same data set over and over > by mistake for a while. So a few day's worth of > computing was wasted, until that was fixed. > Ok, but I was not thinking/misremembering a bug. I was thinking about a malicious code. > It's hard to see why they would cripple the program, > though. It's not like there aren't enough other > distributed computing projects around. (My office > computer analyzes data looking for gravity waves, > when I'm not using it.) > IIRC, the reason for cripple the program was that the s...@home program was a huge success, they got _much more_ volunteers than they planned, and they didn't have enough data to feed all the volunteers unless they crippled the program. So they did it. John Williams wrote: > > I do not know if that is true, but if it is true, I would call it a > feature, not a bug. If there is no useful SETI data for my computer > to crunch, I'd rather have the CPU cycles available for something else. > > Or did you mean that it consumed CPU cycles doing something useless, > like calculating digits of PI repeatedly? > Yes, something like that. The original program was so fast - IIRC - that "them(tm)" projected that the s...@home program would soon finish. They didn't want that, they wanted major press coverage, a program that would last years (and not days), so they crippled the program. This is the scenario I remember. I think I read it right here, in this list. Or maybe I am confusing some X-Files episode with truth. "Mendacem memorem esse oportet" Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SETI@home (history)
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software > included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run > _much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough > data for the millions of computers that would process this > data. I do not know if that is true, but if it is true, I would call it a feature, not a bug. If there is no useful SETI data for my computer to crunch, I'd rather have the CPU cycles available for something else. Or did you mean that it consumed CPU cycles doing something useless, like calculating digits of PI repeatedly? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SETI@home (history)
Alberto Monteiro wrote: IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run _much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough data for the millions of computers that would process this data. I am confusing things? I couldn't find any reference for this. Alberto-- Got me, but there was a problem at the start. The server kept send out the same data set over and over by mistake for a while. So a few day's worth of computing was wasted, until that was fixed. ---David It's hard to see why they would cripple the program, though. It's not like there aren't enough other distributed computing projects around. (My office computer analyzes data looking for gravity waves, when I'm not using it.) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
SETI@home (history)
IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run _much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough data for the millions of computers that would process this data. I am confusing things? I couldn't find any reference for this. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
