John Naylor wrote:I was under the impression BOINC was LGPL and to become part of it the scientific cores of F@H have to be released under the LGPL too, thereby compromising security... If it was as secure as the current system then SETI would not still require multiple results to validate each other...
SETI requires multiple results for comparisons, for code check, for many reasons... who knows? Many projects don't require multiple results (Rosetta is an example), and, most important, you don't have to opensource your code!
7im wrote:Hello cenit, welcome to the folding support forum.
Why not? is not the right question. WHY? is the better question.
Why would Stanford what to saddle itself with porting backwards to a client that was designed by committee? Too many compromises, and too slow to progress. Fah had stream processing clients more than 3 years ago, and BOINC is just now adding it? FAH is blazing the trail for other distributed computing projects to follow. Fah had the first GPU client. First PS3 client. And has had a true SMP client years ahead of BOINC.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting BOINC down as it has its place and purpose. But fah tried this once and didn't have a lot of success.
Have you tried the fah client?
Hi 7im.
I've tried the fah client, in fact I give FAH my ATi 4870, at least until a good project under boinc will support it. I've asked this for this reason: could it be that I'm the ONLY ONE which will leave F@H that day? I'm sure I'm not the only one
In fact, I would like to manage all in a single place, it's better if you don't want to support only one project. If I revert the question, have you ever tried boinc? It's really superior to the fah client!
And for the progress on boinc, don't you think that if PandeGroup had submitted patches to boinc 3 years ago to support GPU, everybody would have benefitted from it? BOINC is an open platform and everybody could help writing code! Doing all in this closed-sourced way has only duplicated efforts!
(for the ps3, boinc is only a platform, virtually running everywhere (it runs on the ps3, some projects support it). It stands on the projects to support as many clients as possible)
toTOW wrote:I think one of the reason that FAH is not available on BOINC has to do with the rapid turnaround that FAH need.
PandeGroup has always said that the faster the WUs are returned, the faster the project makes progress. BOINC software allows you to share your computing power between various projects, which might slow the FAH turnover. BOINC software makes sure that the deadlines are met, but we all know that in FAH, it's better to return the WU as fast as possible

This seems the biggest reason to me, but in a different view: I'm sure that Pande Group are feared to loose clients. I know so many people that don't know anything about distributed computing, but 70% of people who donate do D.C. didn't know the existance of BOINC and the projects that run on it. When they know about it, some leave (yes!) and some runs now more projects, leaving FAH ultimately with less resources. But you cannot say FAH is the best project and so they did something stupid. You can't, in any way!
Beberg wrote:BOINC has one very specific model for the types of projects it supports. Folding@home does not fit into that model. That doesn't make it bad, just different and thus incompatible.
You seem to be a Pande Group Member. I think that from your position you can't say so! Would you mean that Einstein@Home, Rosetta, World Community Grid are less important than you? From your words it seems so! How could you think you couldn't fit with them? Do you think that your "model" (??) is superior?