[RC5] Email warnings about old clients
maxson1 at MARSHALL.EDU
Mon Dec 27 10:04:05 EST 1999
But, you can still have permission to run/install the clients and not have
access to upgrade the client. An example: I set up a client to run on a
girls machine that is living in the dorms. So that she does not have to
worry about team joining/etc..., I use my ID. I cannot hardly bother her
with an upgrade everytime a new client comes out. BUT, I still have
permission to run the client on the machine.
Just my $.02
At 00:11 12/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Another saying pops to mind,
>"distributed.net does not condone the unauthorized use of its software on
> any computer system. You may not run any distributed.net
>software on a
> system unless you own the system or have received
> owner to run distributed.net software. Running an
>unauthorized client will
> make you inelligable for any distributed.net prizes.
>Seems that "permission from the owner" or "own the system" would infer one
>upgrade the clients and tweak them at leisure.
>James Bliese wrote:
>> This reminds me of one of my favorite IS sayings, that you will never
>> a meeting,
>> "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my
>> Todd, not to be offensive, but all those clients are going to be obsolete
>> sooner or later,
>> when RC5 finishes. At that time, they will begin wasting bandwidth
>> RC5 blocks.
>> Since you took the responsibility for these clients when you installed
>> and you are getting
>> the credit for the blocks they complete, and you will probably take the
>> if one of them
>> actually finds the key, exactly why shouldn't you be held somewhat
>> (to the tune
>> of a few emails a month) for making sure they don't waste distributed.net
>> >I think that any changes that make the older clients obsolete will be
>> >detrimental to the project. I can only speak for myself, but there are
>> >over 100 machines that I no longer have access to that are still crunching
>> >away at rc5 blocks.
>> >Many, many moons ago, I set them up with whatever client was currently in
>> >vogue. Now, two years into the project, I no longer directly administer
>> >many of those machines. I *can't* update those clients. In fact, I can't
>> >even STOP them if the project changes in such a way that they are no
>> >longer useful.
>> >If Distributed.Net starts emailing me about clients over which I no longer
>> >have any control, all such emails will inevitably find their way to
>> >/dev/null. This would be a tremendous waste of bandwidth.
>> >My recommendation is that Distributed.Net accept the fact that a lot of
>> >old clients are going to lie around contributing as they can to the
>> >project. If the project decides to obsolesce them, it's going to have to
>> >make the choice to send a portion of the current crunchers to the great
>> >bit bucket in the sky. Regardless, I do *not* want *my* email box
>> >cluttered with emails complaining about things over which I have no
>> >Todd A. Jacobs
>> >Network Systems Engineer
>> James A. Bliese
>> Give your computer some brain-candy!
>> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
More information about the rc5