we log in with a long string serial key
so Boinc knows who we are

why not start a new .exe for the boinc project.

when we started we did astro-pulse or seti-at-home depending on what was being available.

if seti-boinc is not available, why not just get the Boinc clients to run Seti-Classic from within the boinc gui manager.

it already knows the login ID.
it wouldn't need a SetiQueue manager as Boinc caches already.
I doubt it would be difficult to modify SAH cmd-line.exe into a 3.09 version for Boinc.
and then we wouldn't be sitting idle for the last three weeks.

and we wouldn't have to re-configure the hundreds of machines under my control (well 10 actually, but think of Ohio Uni last year, 5,000+ machine)

Allthough BOINC looks somewhat like an add-on from the user's perspective, there is alot more to it than that. Especially on the server side. BOINC sends out work a fixed number of times, seti I sent out work almost randomly. This is one of the reasons the servers are having problems, they have to do more checking than the old ones did. This has advantages too. When seti/BOINC is running it is producing more completed work than seti I even though it is sending fewer workunits to fewer users.

Another point is the version number for seti/boinc and seti I is purely coincidence, they are quite different. All of the communication routines are gone from the BOINC version. The input and output files have a different format.

John Keck
BOINCing since 2002/12/08

> Allthough BOINC looks somewhat like an add-on from the user's perspective,
> there is alot more to it than that. Especially on the server side. BOINC sends
> out work a fixed number of times, seti I sent out work almost randomly. This
> is one of the reasons the servers are having problems, they have to do more
> checking than the old ones did. This has advantages too. When seti/BOINC is
> running it is producing more completed work than seti I even though it is
> sending fewer workunits to fewer users.
>
> Another point is the version number for seti/boinc and seti I is purely
> coincidence, they are quite different. All of the communication routines are
> gone from the BOINC version. The input and output files have a different
> format.

but none of the inside workings of how Boinc works has any relevance to my question.
why not just run a seti-classic.exe as a part of seti-boinc, like astro-pulse was.
the seti-classic.exe wouldn't have to get wus from boinc.
why?:
because it would be doing a normal old style request for a wu.
bypass boinc to the std server.
stop with the technical crap.... boinc is still sucky...
and I'm not going to reset all my machines because boinc is off.
there is too many of them.
so now they are idle.

> but none of the inside workings of how Boinc works has any relevance to my
> question.
> why not just run a seti-classic.exe as a part of seti-boinc, like astro-pulse
> was.
> the seti-classic.exe wouldn't have to get wus from boinc.
> why?:
> because it would be doing a normal old style request for a wu.
> bypass boinc to the std server.
> stop with the technical crap.... boinc is still sucky...
> and I'm not going to reset all my machines because boinc is off.
> there is too many of them.
> so now they are idle.
>
S@H classic does not have the control interface that would allow BOINC to do anything with it, or tell what is going on.