FightAids@Home recently released their software under the World Community Grid, an closed source implementation.

As an avid Linux user and open source supporter, I am morally opposed to any public service effort such as "FightAids@Home" or "World Community Grid" which is not open source. As one of many negative consequences, FightAids@Home software runs only on Windows computers. Please see the letter below that I sent to Dr. Olson whose laboratory started the FightAids@Home project. If you agree, please send a copy of the letter to Dr. Olson.

I support Boinc and Seti II which dedicated itself to the open source community. In the same thought, please make others aware of the closed source nature of the World Community Grid.
=====================================================
To Dr. Olson olson@scripps.edu ,Molecular Graphics Laboratory

Dear Dr. Olson,

To begin my message, I want to express gratitude to the Scripps Research Institute and to the Molecular Graphics Laboratory for starting the FightAids@home project. As a long-term supporter of the distributed computing projects, I believe the distributed computing is the most efficient way to solve complex public problems at the lowest cost and in the shortest time.

However, I believe your laboratory made a grave mistake by keeping the FightAids@Home project from releasing the application source.

First of all, public projects are open-source projects by their nature. The @Home projects ask users to contribute their personal computer time toward the greater good. It is fitting that the users have a benefit of examining the project source and determining the actual working of the software. Thus, the users can benefit from the project, not only the project can benefit from the users.

Second, I can assure you that the project development will benefit from the participants. For example, I am currently active in Seti@Home project. Since Seti has released the source to the public (http://sourceforge.net/projects/setiboinc/), the volunteer developers were able to improve the program and gain more than 70% speed advantage. Meanwhile, they developed the validation routine in order to make sure that the optimized applications produce meaningful scientific results. Thus, more science is being done at the same amount of time.

Lastly, the volunteer developers ported the software to numerous platforms. Today, FightAids@Home supports only limited number of Windows platform. The volunteer developers will gladly port the software to the other platforms. I don't understand why my computers running Linux on Itanium2 processors should be excluded from an important task like FightAids@Home.

Please consider releasing the source of the FightAids@Home project.

Best regards,
Michael Khusid
MIT Alumni

---

I thought they found a dude who produced antibodies against the disease?

just a tick...
here it is..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1870340,00.html

---

I thought they found a dude who produced antibodies against the disease?

just a tick...
here it is..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1870340,00.html

They haven't confimed it as the bloke won't go bak in for tests are there are doubts over it they think the results could have been mixed up or wrong to start with

---

Join us in Chat (see the forum) Click the Sig


Join UBT

FightAids@Home for BOINC under Linux is being worked on and will soon be released . After what I've read in their forums a BOINC Windows version will probably follow.

---

Waht staffan says is correct Linux is there main priority and then the Windows client after that, they have also said they will try to fully implement the BOINC style pages in to the FAAH project so that it will prob be similar kind of style to CPDN

---

Join us in Chat (see the forum) Click the Sig


Join UBT

FightAids@Home for BOINC under Linux is being worked on and will soon be released . After what I've read in their forums a BOINC Windows version will probably follow.

I am afraid you entirely missed the point of my post. Yes, it would be great that Scripps researchers spend their time and release a Linux on regular 32-bit Intel CPUs.

The next moment I'll ask them -- what about my x64_64 bit CPUs? What about my Itanium? What about my Macs? Will my Macs do more science if they run Darwin or if they run Linux?

It's good that these researchers spend their time and government grants to work on the software. It would be even better if they shared their work (read: their SOURCE CODE) with the public so that volunteer developers can enrich their work. Do you know that an optimized Seti Linux client beats the standard Seti Linux client by 225% [Reference]? That's the advantage that is missing from the current closed-source effort.

Please support my effort to have FightAids@Home release their source code.

---

I am afraid you entirely missed the point of my post.

No, I just chose only to comment a part of it that may give an incorrect impression to readers (that FightAids will only be available for Windows).

As for open source, I am for using it whenever possible. It is not the first priority for me though - that is the purpose of the project. Also important - as important as open source or not - is the way the project is run. Is the software high quality (correct results, no crashes...)? How is the feedback to the users? And so on.

Take CPDN as an example - they do very important work using a propriatry software model. In that case it would not be likely that the climate model would be opened up, and since it would be an unreasonably large effort writing a new open source one, the best alterantive is to proceed as they do. I will continue supporting CPDN since I think the purpose of the project is important and that they do a good job.

As for optimisation, it is a good thing if you can use it. We should not waste CPU cycles on inefficient code. I myself use an optimised SETI client. But optimisation can sometimes have complex consequences. Let me again take CPDN as an example: it has been shown that applying optimisations to the climate model changes the results, something that can risk the value of the results. Therefore it must be up to each project to decide if they are willing to take the risk of using optimised clients.

I wish you good luck in changing the minds of the people at FightAids@Home. However, if you fail it will not stop me from supporting their project (assuming they put out a BOINC Windows client).

---

.... The next moment I'll ask them -- what about my x64_64 bit CPUs? .....

As I understand it from my son, with computer science degree, is that 64bit programs are not with us yet is because either it is not required in the mainstream or if it is required/wanted then the 64bit compilers/assemblers are no yet up to the standard or speed of the 32 bit ones. He also says that several programs that have been ported to 64bit still run slower than the 32bit versions, and are not as stable.

I also am led to believe that Intel choose to keep their mainstream CPU's 32bit and go HT or Dual Core was because they didn't see the need.

I have also read very recently that the 64bit and dual/ht versions of games that the gamers have been eagerly awaiting, which will probably not hit the streets until at least mid 2006, will show modest, less than 30%, improvement in speed or graphics.

My opion is that those that were seduced by the 64bit hype, may have jumped too soon and will probable need to upgrade again when 64bit becomes mainstream.

People just don't study History. How long was it before Windows really went from 16bit to 32bit computing?
Answer probable lies in: When did 386 cpu appear? When was 16bit code get removed from supposed 32 bit Windows?

---

?

---

.... The next moment I'll ask them -- what about my x64_64 bit CPUs? .....

As I understand it from my son, with computer science degree, is that 64bit programs are not with us yet is because either it is not required in the mainstream or if it is required/wanted then the 64bit compilers/assemblers are no yet up to the standard or speed of the 32 bit ones. He also says that several programs that have been ported to 64bit still run slower than the 32bit versions, and are not as stable.

I also am led to believe that Intel choose to keep their mainstream CPU's 32bit and go HT or Dual Core was because they didn't see the need.

I have also read very recently that the 64bit and dual/ht versions of games that the gamers have been eagerly awaiting, which will probably not hit the streets until at least mid 2006, will show modest, less than 30%, improvement in speed or graphics.

My opion is that those that were seduced by the 64bit hype, may have jumped too soon and will probable need to upgrade again when 64bit becomes mainstream.

People just don't study History. How long was it before Windows really went from 16bit to 32bit computing?
Answer probable lies in: When did 386 cpu appear? When was 16bit code get removed from supposed 32 bit Windows?

This may very well be true, but if we already went with 64-bit CPUs, I doubt we'll have to upgrade hardware....only the OS. You'll have to do both.

My opion is that those that were seduced by the 64bit hype, may have jumped too soon and will probable need to upgrade again when 64bit becomes mainstream.

People just don't study History. How long was it before Windows really went from 16bit to 32bit computing?
Answer probable lies in: When did 386 cpu appear? When was 16bit code get removed from supposed 32 bit Windows?

This may very well be true, but if we already went with 64-bit CPUs, I doubt we'll have to upgrade hardware....only the OS. You'll have to do both.

I LOVE this example! Why do you think it took Windows so long to go fully 32-bit? Because it is a closed source system.

I choose Linux for exactly the same reason. Linux is open source, and it fully supports 64-bit OS, 64-bit allocations, 64-bit compilers, 64-bit optimizations and much else. For me, 64-bit is today because I chose Linux.

Then, you mention that games are not optimized for 64-bit. Neither is FAAH. Make it open source and it will use 64-bit within several months.

So, back to my point -- I want FAAH and other public projects to be open source. Then, they'll adapt faster and will be able to make the difference.

---

So, back to my point -- I want FAAH and other public projects to be open source. Then, they'll adapt faster and will be able to make the difference.

I want doesn't get!!!

They may release the code one day but I doubt WCG ever would, rosetta is currently thinking of making theres open source.

---

Join us in Chat (see the forum) Click the Sig


Join UBT