I've already seen this information. (The F@H project has been granted special permission to use code from these projects without needing to be an open source project itself.) My argument is still just as valid. I'm talking here specifically about the. If anything, I'm am ignorant about using the F@H program itself.7im wrote:...
Which DC project doesn't use proprietary methods? Sure, the fah client is proprietary, but only acts as a file manager to download and upload work units. The fahcores that do all the processing are based on open source software. See Gromacs.org, and the like. See the Open Source FAQ on the project web page. You should really learn a bit more about the software before passing judgments about morality like that.
I already acknowledged this in a previous post. Simply put: it's not the same. Although, yes, having the latest version would be smarter. It's really more about the freedom, I think.7im wrote:... Then you weren't listening, or aren't well informed. Several distros were listed above that help distribute fah (not the actual files, but scripts that download, install, and run fah), and fah does cooperate (when asked and is possible) to provide ways to make it easier to run fah. OC.Net was prevented from distributing the actual client files, but WAS helped with instructions how to use an installer or script that downloads the client from Stanford. And downloading the latest version of the client is usually better. Once you put a full client on a disk, it becomes outdated the next time fah updates the client. Why distribute outdated software? Why not distribute a script to get the lastest software?
Good argument. I wasn't aware of this.7im wrote:Waste of bandwidth? Are you kidding? The client download is a fraction of the updates you typically download when installing a 'nix OS. And even if only running a liveCD, the client download is only a fraction of the bandwidth compared to all the work units that will be coming and going.
The thing is, I feel that the arguments presented by others been weak or limiting and people not taken seriously. Such forum thread gets trashed because people have biases which cloud their vision. (I don't really see that here, which is good.)7im wrote:And no offense, but this has been debated several times before. The minuses outweighed the positives, and likely still do, irksome to you as they may be.
I do admit the arguments I have have presented are probably a little strong (for lack of a better word) than I would have liked.