Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Would you use, appreciate, or be otherwise in support of a stand-alone console client for your OS?

Yes
23
58%
No
7
18%
Not sure or doesn't matter to me
10
25%
 
Total votes: 40

Jesse_V
Site Moderator
Posts: 2850
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:44 am
Hardware configuration: OS: Windows 10, Kubuntu 19.04
CPU: i7-6700k
GPU: GTX 970, GTX 1080 TI
RAM: 24 GB DDR4
Location: Western Washington

Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by Jesse_V »

VijayPande wrote:We could package stand alone console clients for all OS's in the way we've been talking about doing it for linux. Would that be of interest?
Because I like collaborative efforts and voting on things, I thought I'd make a poll about this. Obviously not everyone who would be affected will be voting, but I'm hoping that the results of this poll will be a reliable representative of the overall opinion, even if it is a straw poll.

This is related to viewtopic.php?f=75&t=22116&start=0
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by 7im »

Not needed. Windows client already supports running as console only.
Last edited by 7im on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Aardvark
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Team MacResource

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by Aardvark »

Thanks, Jesse_V. A poll for the Times.
What is past is prologue!
JimboPalmer
Posts: 2522
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:12 am
Location: Greenwood MS USA

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by JimboPalmer »

I am against it, a 'stand alone' client greatly increases chances of fraud and unauthorized use of company equipment.
Tsar of all the Rushers
I tried to remain childlike, all I achieved was childish.
A friend to those who want no friends
jrweiss
Posts: 704
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:56 am
Hardware configuration: Ryzen 7 5700G, 22.40.46 VGA driver; 32GB G-Skill Trident DDR4-3200; Samsung 860EVO 1TB Boot SSD; VelociRaptor 1TB; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver; BeQuiet FM 550 PSU; Lian Li PC-9F; Win11Pro-64, F@H 8.3.5.

[Suspended] Ryzen 7 3700X, MSI X570MPG, 32GB G-Skill Trident Z DDR4-3600; Corsair MP600 M.2 PCIe Gen4 Boot, Samsung 840EVO-250 SSDs; VelociRaptor 1TB, Raptor 150; MSI GTX 1050ti, 526.98 driver; Kingwin Stryker 500 PSU; Lian Li PC-K7B. Win10Pro-64, F@H 8.3.5.
Location: @Home
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by jrweiss »

I support the option, but wouldn't use it (Win7-64). The current "systray" version is about as unobtrusive as it can get, and even has the option to run as a Service in many installations. Since I also use the GUI in lieu of an aftermarket monitor app, it works just fine as it is.
Ryzen 7 5700G, 22.40.46 VGA driver; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver
Ryzen 7 3700X; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver [Suspended]
bruce
Posts: 20824
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by bruce »

If you install the V7.1.52 on OS-X and then only start FAHControl (or some other monitor program) when you want to see what's going on, how is that any different than the functionality of a combination of the features found in the systray version and a proposed stand-alone version? The OS-X version of fahcontrol runs in the background with console output directed to a file which can be viewed with a simple OS-X script or with something more complex.
v00d00
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:53 am
Hardware configuration: FX8320e (6 cores enabled) @ stock,
- 16GB DDR3,
- Zotac GTX 1050Ti @ Stock.
- Gigabyte GTX 970 @ Stock
Debian 9.

Running GPU since it came out, CPU since client version 3.
Folding since Folding began (~2000) and ran Genome@Home for a while too.
Ran Seti@Home prior to that.
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by v00d00 »

JimboPalmer wrote:I am against it, a 'stand alone' client greatly increases chances of fraud and unauthorized use of company equipment.
Whether you use a standalone client or full client, it isnt impossible to write software to deploy/borg using the current v7 client. So that argument is moot.

Yes i want one for Linux, but ive already requested it in the other thread.
Image
calxalot
Site Moderator
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:33 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by calxalot »

If stand alone client means no installer, just FAHClient, FAHCoreWrapper, and some doc files, I suppose so.
But I would put these on a separate download page, without friendly terms like "no-nonsense", and with a warning making it clear that you must use the command line to use them.
The client also needs to be smart enough to not use the current working directory if the user just double clicks the exe, as that would probably be their home directory.
It should use the exe directory, or some default under the user's home.
screen317
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:44 am

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by screen317 »

Is one really needed for Windows?
bruce
Posts: 20824
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by bruce »

calxalot wrote:The client also needs to be smart enough to not use the current working directory if the user just double clicks the exe, as that would probably be their home directory.
It should use the exe directory, or some default under the user's home.
Defining a universally accepted default is a bit of a problem if you expect it to apply to all Operating Systems. Something like that can be set or changed by an installer but now you're hedging your bets.

> FAHClient.exe --help seems to answer that question. As a command-line process with no installer, it will do EXACTLY what you tell it to, no more/no less. If you don't understand the concept of setting a current directory, you'd better learn that before you try to run an application that doesn't have an installer.

> FAHClient.exe --chdir my_fah_files
calxalot
Site Moderator
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:33 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by calxalot »

We know from experience that some people will download the console client and simply double click the exe.

Universal defaults are not required, as the client knows what platform it's running on and can choose an appropriate default.
I think something other than the current working directory would be more reasonable if it can determine that it was launched by double click.
CWD being the user's home directory would be a strong clue.
Dropping its files in the user's home would almost always be the wrong thing to do.
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by 7im »

Any stand alone client should be barebones with no defaults, for experts only. Caveat Folder.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
calxalot
Site Moderator
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:33 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by calxalot »

If it's on a separate download page, that would be fine.
I just don't want to see it casually downloaded by mistake.
As has happened in the past.
Jesse_V
Site Moderator
Posts: 2850
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:44 am
Hardware configuration: OS: Windows 10, Kubuntu 19.04
CPU: i7-6700k
GPU: GTX 970, GTX 1080 TI
RAM: 24 GB DDR4
Location: Western Washington

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by Jesse_V »

calxalot wrote:If it's on a separate download page, that would be fine.
I just don't want to see it casually downloaded by mistake.
As has happened in the past.
Agreed. Since it will no doubt tailor to a smaller and more specific set of users, its documentation/instructions/help pages should be separate as well, otherwise newcomers could get very mixed up.
F@h is now the top computing platform on the planet and nothing unites people like a dedicated fight against a common enemy. This virus affects all of us. Lets end it together.
v00d00
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:53 am
Hardware configuration: FX8320e (6 cores enabled) @ stock,
- 16GB DDR3,
- Zotac GTX 1050Ti @ Stock.
- Gigabyte GTX 970 @ Stock
Debian 9.

Running GPU since it came out, CPU since client version 3.
Folding since Folding began (~2000) and ran Genome@Home for a while too.
Ran Seti@Home prior to that.
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

Post by v00d00 »

I agree on those points.

The console client is more aimed at corporate folders, people who deploy onto other mass networked systems, linux server users that have no x or gui available, and anyone else who has no need for FAHControl.

It would be better to have it on a seperate page, like the old High Performance clients were.
calxalot wrote:If stand alone client means no installer, just FAHClient, FAHCoreWrapper, and some doc files, I suppose so.
But I would put these on a separate download page, without friendly terms like "no-nonsense", and with a warning making it clear that you must use the command line to use them.
The client also needs to be smart enough to not use the current working directory if the user just double clicks the exe, as that would probably be their home directory.
It should use the exe directory, or some default under the user's home.
This problem really only occurs for Windows.

For Linux and Macs the setup process is a little different and a bit harder. In general their is no such thing as double clicking the .exe (unless you are running something via Wine).

Also i agree at losing the no-nonsense. Maybe we can have Pro Console Only Client? :P (But it will probably just be console client).
Image
Post Reply