Folding Forum

I am not saying I don't see good intentions.

shdbcamping wrote:WOW, a pissing match and I'm not one of them .

C'Mon, as long as Science prospers, does it matter who/how/why?

There is no pissing match going on. You need better reading skills.

There has been a bit of explanation going on for the most part. Then there is a part of dodging going on as well. And I do hope science will prosper, but someone who claims he did not know about EULA ( and believe me I know better! ) well that's not going to fly. As you should have noted, I was dragged into this by someone else quoting something I said, not reacting would not have been better.

No one should be able to say he has folded for more then some time and knows a thing or two from experience and try to use the excuse of ignorance.

Classifying pointing that out as a pissing contest is almost like trying to start one.

Anyway, I stopped posting here when I was left unanswerd, I'm still waiting

Ah, yes, but I gave you one answer to help you.

And a stand-off never gets anything accomplished. Only through continued communication can anything be resolved. Not posting just assured a bad outcome.

The problem is continued communication, it implies mutual initiation of said conversation and it's been to single sided don't you agree?

I should be thankfull though, I got so dissapointed that I let it influence my feelings for the entire project, but being here and reading some of the active threads ect remind me of why this forum has never been bad for me. There are so many good people here, doing things which they all think will be beneficial for the project or science. And there is no one who does not fit that profile who survives here for long.

I missed you lot, and the lot knows I hope who I mean

Edit:

Btw on the topic of dust.. there isn't much dust, just crumbles or leftovers from a continuing port to mono

Im sorry for quoting you I apologized earlyer. When I was reading it, it seemed similar and thats why I quoted it. If I was wrong to do so I am sorry. We also did not notice the EULA and now that it is in our intention we are working on a way to bring it into the EULA but that may be a couple updates down the line when testing is finished on the code. I will push for an EULA compliment system.

Apologies not needed at all, I always argument just on the safe side of the thin line and yes I'm aware that's not the most productive approach.

No need to apologize, I didn't pursue an apology I only want to communicate my thoughts ( and I admit when making the first post it was abit out of feelings as well ). You will understand yourself that these questions need to be asked ( if only to keep an indication about a need for such change ) but the quote made me feel like you wanted to promote your application over my own effort in particular.

And that stings, because yes you might have people actually being able to use your application, and I can not say the same. But, my reason is I don't want to break EULA, I feel that's an important part of this project and by putting out a tool which offers needed functionality but compromises the project in other manners I personally think you're not doing much good for the project.

The other side to that argument would be Ivoshee, but as been made clear times have changed since then maybe, and I decided to wait untill the changes needed were carried out.

So there is my personal feelings about this, however I that who does things is by far not as important as that it gets done. So I do whish you good luck with your development and coorporation with Pande Group.I would also gladly contribute to any open source community effort develop a framework to install, monitor and control clients on all platforms, and will certainly support anyone working towards change for the better for the folding community.

It would however be easier if there was a more direct line of communication with your coders, but I understand why that's not going to happen yet.

Which is a shame, since it's likely that any issues they will face have already been tackeld by others who could therefore safe you allot of development time ( and, since we're doing this for the sake of the community alone this is the best thing right? ).

Edit: I will ask a mod to clean this thread if you don't object, think the last page of posts have been deviating way to much from the intent of the thread.

I say if you believe in something to pursue it to the end as well as first decide and then just do it. And if in the end you find your decision was the wrong one, face it when the time comes. What I am trying to say is I would like to see you develop your project again as well, but only if you decide and have the will to do it. At the time we made what we thought was the right choice but is turning out to be the wrong one so we are doing what we have to to fix what we did wrong. When we have EULA I would be glad post up a lot of information on the tool when we have the EULA support. Technically Im going after the permission and figuring out what we need to do to bring it within the EULA with out him knowing.

MtM wrote:Edit: I will ask a mod to clean this thread if you don't object, think the last page of posts have been deviating way to much from the intent of the thread.

I enjoyed the read... but I fully agree. This has nothing to do with any changes to the current client interface. Of course, currently there really isn't any "interface". We 3rd party devs just read the artifacts of the client.

@CadBane - have you or your friends used my project, HFM.NET? It's not an installer... but otherwise, maybe it already does what you're looking for.

Edit by Mod:
The discussion has it's merits so I separated it from the original forum and made it part of the FAH GPU Tracker topic.

Yes we do use HFM.net mostly because it can calculate Bonus points and we like further information on what we WU we are working on. In the tracker you can see the project #, Points, and % done. It does keep a log of all work units completed and failed in a separate log so that you can see which WUs give you problems and also an overall completion % for the client (useful for the bonus systems because you must keep a successful completion rate of 80 or 90% I just cant remember exactly). There is a lot in the tracker and we are working on ways to bring it within EULA. We are down one developer until they get a new hdd.

P.S. If I dont respond right away I am on vacation and should be back on June 17th or the 18th.

Sounds familiar.

Hi,

I am the primary developer of FAH GPU Tracker V2, and I apologize for taking so long to respond to this thread.

The latest version of the Tracker at the time this thread was started (2.79 beta) included the FAH clients in the download package. The latest version (2.93 stable) does not include the clients, and instead downloads them on the first use of the Tracker. 2.79 beta and the latest public version 2.93 stable control the clients by modifying client.cfg directly. The current beta version (2.95 beta) changes client.cfg by running a FAH client with the -configonly flag and writing the changes to the console. A public stable version with this change will be released soon, after it has been properly tested.

These changes should address the major EULA issues. If there are any remaining issues, I will do my best to address them as well.

As for your program MtM, I had not heard of it before reading this thread. All the code used in FAH GPU Tracker V2 is original.

jedi95

jedi95, I would love to see your code then

Especially those changes to comply with the EULA, like using a client to edit the configuration files... as I wrote in my own threads this is hard to do reliable ( the client will hang now and then guaranteed, just as it will when you start it with -configonly 100 times in a row ).

So if you're able to work around that and better then I did for instance here -> http://code.google.com/p/maxfah/ which is a very old project file with code which has not been updated in ages.... well I'm eager to learn

And I am sorry I am not able to post some of the personal messages I gotten on other forums, from people who where working on a particular program and told me they would take my ideas ( no problem, I feel honord ) and my code ( mhm... that's not nice is it ) and make their own version just because I was to concerned with 'pleasing Pande Group' and complying with rules and so on. The reason for that isn't just that this forum does not allow it, but mostly because the admin of that other forum banned me right after I got the pm's.. coincidence maybe, but I'm inclined to disagree untill proven otherwise.

Not saying you stole code, just saying I think you did I'll let a mod look at this post right after I make it, don't want to break any forum rules or anything, but I think I'm allowed to express a personal opinion

Wow, three months to reply to him MtM.. you are getting slow.

My previous reply was in a much more negative tone, and it got removed from the forum... that contributed to my 3 month absence from these forums.

I haven't seen a public release which complies with EULA btw, so one could say I'm not the only one getting slow

When I folded for hardwareasylum I wrote a simple program. very simple.. it worked just as this one ( well some revisions back offcourse ), but I never released it other then to my co captain of the folding team who also got the source from me. If it takes them this long to improve it so little, it's got to be because they did not care it broke all the rules possible ( distribution of clients, changing the cfg file directly ). I would not feel upset at all if they would leave it there, but now they want to claim it's 'theirs' and bring it into compliance so they can show of their hard work here, that's what hits a wrong nerve.

Changing the monitoring code is a peace of cake, especially since they themself admit taking leasons from other open source software. Writing to the client console is also easy, but abit more complicated then monitoring. All their so called unique functions are pieces of code I thrown around the net with various apps I never finished because I wanted to present an all in one working final solution to everything... which is actually almost impossible. But offcourse, this project is not open source, as if it where, I'm personally convinced the code will show more simularities with allot of those old projects of mine then chanche would allow. It's probably to bad none of those other pieces of code I put out where coverd by a gpl license, something I will never ever forget to do in the future

MtM: It looks like they've been actively developing this application as they have a support thread for it, with several users, over at the EVGA forum. They are now up to a v3.10 release. I guess since they don't want to follow the EULA, they don't hang out here anymore.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=219556