CadBane wrote:Joe I hope I have found the right place to see if it is ok to do what we are doing with a 3rd party Interface called FAH GPU Tracker V2 which pretty much fills the bill for what the quoted is covering. The Tracker was designed go give the utmost simplicity in setting up the clients for GPUS (GPU2 & GPU3) the cpu and CPU SMP system. We came up with this system after playing around with folding@home learning everything we could for about 2 years and then making a GUI with a Status monitoring system as well as a configuration panel with everything you could ever imagine for setup of clients. We even have implemented a system for remote control of multiple systems such as farm that you can configure them all by use of a web xml file. the system has been tested to work. But the client would have official F@H files in it such as the cores and clients which to use we will need some kind of permission from Stanford. The main thing we have done is to program and create an all around monitoring, configuration and for the most part Noob Friendly setup system. I would like to talk to you more about it, If you would be willing to talk could you please PM me or tell me in this topic?
All core and client files are stock and exactly the same as distributed from Stanford. All that is added is a smart GUI for management.
You quoted me with this message?
Do you want to put on the same level something I could wip together in a day to the project I was undertaking? You realise my project's base code consisted over 40.000 lines? It''s easy to steal something here and there, I gave people source code for programs like your's years back with the notice that it's useless as you can't actually use without breaking EULA. You have not included a single bit of functionality in your gui which I have not given out code to do just that in the past, not a single bit. Not saying you copied it, but you could have, I'm saying it's in no way new or inovative.
Now I stopped working on it since I got ZERO reply in this thread ( edit: reminder this quote is moved from another thread about standardizing the client/core's interface ) from the one person who might be able to fix a couple of small things so a proper 3rd party gui could work WITHIN the boundries of the EULA, I stopped because even after I had gotten permission to work on it and being promised some level of coorporation I could not get the mpich installer to be distributed with another packager so I could run it silently like deino. I stopped because all in all I felt like I was alone fighting an uphill battle.
And that was even after I 'passed' the approval rate.
It's btw EASY to not include the clients but download them, it really is so why you're breaking EULA for this is beyond me! Also it's against EULA to write to configuration files directly, which I'm suspecting is how you control the clients. And AGAIN, it's not impossible to stay within the EULA and use the programs own ability to generate it's configuration file.
Please next time you quote me, make sure you make sure why you quote me, as it almost seemed as if you wanted to put your project at the same level as mine. Which it is clearly not, for two reasons, one of which is in your favour! Your solution works, well if you don't consider breaking EULA's important, mine which is limited by such agreements has difficulties with very specific aspects ( installation of mpich package mostly, then the project's monitoring part was getting to big for it's intend and I think HFM.net is doing almost everything I wanted to do and a better alternative, then the hw recognition engine was not fail proof and I had a project issue where my web based installer didn't include the needed references ).
All in all, I think I have less work fixing what is wrong with my project, then you would have by rewriting your gui to adhere to official EULA.
Edit:
I have to come clean, it's not that easy to download the clients ( as evident with the MPICH package, yes it's easy to download but not to automate the setup procedure ). There are catches to every approach, but it's most certainly doable which is enough of a point to make.
Look, I like 'your' idea, I like the enthousiasm, I envy it even since I lost mine abit.
Maybe I should renew the project, make it active again, and work around the deino issue by including an smp client myself? That's your approach it seems, and you think it will work.
Or maybe, and that's more likely as it is what I been doing: waiting for the next SMP client and next GPU client, hoping that some of the ideas did get carried over, hoping that it will be possible to use a framework such as mine to install/control and monitor those client's without breaking EULA. Well I'll leave the monitoring to HFM.net, as long as I can provide a gui for control that's fine with me and so much easier as well ( monitoring current clients is HARD, not to get basic info that's easy but to get extrapolated info that's hard ).