[rc5] distributed.net: a Generalised Compute Resource?
bernd at unix.ict.tuwien.ac.at
Mon Jun 23 12:20:26 EDT 1997
On Friday, 20 Jun 1997 14:30, Marc Sissom wrote:
> At 08:36 PM 6/20/97 +0200, you wrote:
> >On Friday, 20 Jun 1997 18:33, "Matt J. Gumbley" wrote:
> >Which leads to the questions :
> >1) What about money for this. If somebody uses "my" computer, he
> >should pay for it (like renting a car you could rent CPU time) ?
> Any machine that can perform process accounting can handle this
> >2) The security issues must be solved. These jobs MUST NOT ever have
> >the poissibility to destroy anything from the rest of the computer
> >system (sorry, win95 :-).
Actually this is easy: just start the local server as on ordinary
user after chroot(somewhere), than he can´t access even your /etc/*
files ... (e.g. anonymous ftp is doing so). So you could even access
the disk ... (again sorry Windows machines ....).
> >3) What about laws. Say my computer participates in such a net and it
> >is used for illegal purposes. Who si responsible ?????
> I doubt if you would be held accountable at least in the USA. The
> victim of fraud is not considered an accomplice or accessory to a
> crime. In this case, the service said it would be honest, you
> believed them; they weren't and you were fooled. No problem with
> the law there.
> Consider this as an analogy. You are employed by a temporary employment
> agency. They hire you out. You make money and so do they. If one of
> their clients is a criminal, it's not your problem unless you find
> out and then continue to work for them.
If this is true in other countries (like Austria in my case), then it
is acceptable ... (I´m not a lawyer)
> Both of these could be covered by some form of bond or insurance. It
> could be an integral component of the contract that you have with
> the "Distributed Network Provider". Something similar to liability
> insurance for your car or title insurance for your home or the type
> of bond that some service providers must produce in order to obtain
> a license.
> Or, it could be more efficient to reverse the situation. The DNP owns
> the machines and lets _you_ buy cycles.
Actually that´s what I thought originally: a company (or group or
whatever) is selling CPU time without local administration effort
(except of the installation of the software ...
> The only common denominator that I can think of, is that the revenue
> generated by the "idle" proc must be at least enough to cover the
> expense of leaving it on. In some cases, this would not apply, as in
> the showroom scenario where the machines would be on regardless, so
> any revenue would be a plus.
As with every business: all involved partys should have a revenue out
of it (in which form ever).
> There are as many possible solutions as there are cellular phone
> contract variations. It does not have to be a "one for fits all"
> type of solution.
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.
Bernd Petrovitsch Institute of Computer Technology
Gußhausstraße 25-29, A-1040 Vienna Email: bernd at ict.tuwien.ac.at
2 is the oddest prime number
UNIX is user-friendly ... it's just selective about who its friends
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.
More information about the rc5